a I B R A R Y 
O F THE 

UNIVERSITY 
Of  ILLINOIS 


270 
Schlh 
1958  • 
v.l 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/historyofchristi01scha_0 


HISTORY  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH 


trout 


WEtiSoj 


; Colon  ia 


A M, 

Conflate 


fc""  Vini 

NO  Rica, 


nto'na 


-'  n.a 


COttBJC'. 


p'.-iieria  \ 5» 

i Uomat 


^^■‘".Harc/n 

■‘*rr a,.„ 


^AriL’iu‘ 


Keaitolikl* 

f Pot«Vw‘ 


36'««fi 

U<!*«a 


SABm»,Al 


^rigenttu 


pSyiuo 


irameftim 


MfsHtaj 


“ ^%Q'Mt;iunK 


OlKdaniiis, 


.MPEK1 L M IlOMANORUM 

Inlissiim  pfiioisK 


ifienuii 


Aitjll'IfSft. 


K.Saiaie*  A J io  ipiilivl(>Mt. 


\ 


a"'*'-  9Q£a*»»«’’”7 

f v.e.  T v vQk^ 

* n: 


‘aHjs 

^S^uia  )i  1 


ftkiwS*’* 


csrtA 


|co^ma% 


Ales^lllr^ 


ijS^sMsg*# 


HISTORY 


OF  THE 

CHRISTIAN  CHURCH 

BY 

PHILIP  SCHAFF 


Christianus  sum.  Christiani  nihil  a me  alienum  puto 


VOLUME  I 

APOSTOLIC  CHRISTIAN  IT  Y 

A.D.  1-100 


WM.  B.  EERDMANS  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 


GRAND  RAPIDS 


MICHIGAN 


COPYRIGHT,  1910,  BY 
Charles  scribner’s  sons 

Reproduced  by  special  arrangement 
with  the  original  publisher 


PHOTOLITHOPRINT  ED  BY  CUSHING  - MALLOY,  INC. 
ANN  ARBOR,  MICHIGAN,  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA 
19  66 


PREFACE  TO  THE  THIRD  REVISION 


The  continued  demand  for  my  Church  History  lays  upon 
me  the  grateful  duty  of  keeping  it  abreast  of  the  times.  I 
have,  therefore,  submitted  this  and  the  other  volumes  (especi- 
ally the  second)  to  another  revision  and  brought  the  literature 
down  to  the  latest  date,  as  the  reader  will  see  by  glancing  at 
pages  2,  35,  45,  51-53,  193,  411,  484,  569,  570,  etc.  The 
changes  have  been  effected  by  omissions  and  condensations, 
without  enlarging  the  size.  The  second  volume  is  now  passing 
through  the  fifth  edition,  and  the  other  volumes  will  follow 
rapidly. 

This  is  my  last  revision.  If  any  further  improvements 
should  be  necessary  during  my  life-time,  I shall  add  them  in  a 
separate  appendix. 

I feel  under  great  obligation  to  the  reading  public  which 
' enables  me  to  perfect  my  work.  The  interest  in  Church  His- 
tory is  steadily  increasing  in  our  theological  schools  and  among 
' the  rising  generation  of  scholars,  and  promises  good  results  for 
^>the  advancement  of  our  common  Christianity. 


New  York,  January,  1890. 


THE  AUTHOR 


PREFACE  TO  THE  REVISED  EDITION 


As  I appear  before  the  public  with  a new  edition  of  my 
Church  History,  I feel  more  than  ever  the  difficulty  and  re- 
sponsibility of  a task  which  is  well  worthy  to  occupy  the  whole 
time  and  strength  of  a long  life,  and  which  carries  in  it  its  own 
rich  reward.  The  true  historian  of  Christianity  is  yet  to  come. 
But  short  as  I have  fallen  of  my  own  ideal,  I have  done  my 
best,  and  shall  rejoice  if  my  efforts  stimulate  others  to  better 
and  more  enduring  work. 

History  should  be  written  from  the  original  sources  of  friend 
and  foe,  in  the  spirit  of  truth  and  love,  “ sine  ira  et  studio,” 
“with  malice  towards  none,  with  charity  for  all,”  in  clear,  fresh, 
vigorous  style,  under  the  guidance  of  the  twin  parables  of  the 
mustard-seed  and  leaven,  as  a book  of  life  for  instruction,  cor- 
rection, encouragement,  as  the  best  exposition  and  vindication 
of  Christianity.  The  great  and  good  Meander,  “the  father  of 
church  history  ” — first  an  Israelite  without  guile  hoping  for  the 
Messiah,  then  a Platonist  longing  for  the  realization  of  his 
ideal  of  righteousness,  last  a Christian  in  head  and  heart — 
made  such  a history  his  life-work,  but  before  reaching  the 
Reformation  he  was  interrupted  by  sickness,  and  said  to  his 
faithful  sister:  “Hannchen,  I am  weary;  let  us  go  home; 
good  night ! ” And  thus  he  fell  gently  asleep,  like  a child,  to 
awake  in  the  land  where  all  problems  of  history  are  solved. 

When,  after  a long  interruption  caused  by  a change  of  pro- 
fessional duties  and  literary  labors,  I returned  to  the  favorite 
studies  of  my  youth,  I felt  the  necessity,  before  continuing  the 
History  to  more  recent  times,  of  subjecting  the  first  volume  to  a 
thorough  revision,  in  order  to  bring  it  up  to  the  present  state  of 
investigation.  We  live  in  a stirring  and  restless  age  of  dis- 
covery, criticism,  and  reconstruction.  During  the  thirty  years 
which  have  elapsed  since  the  publication  of  my  separate  “ His- 
tory of  the  Apostolic  Church,”  there  has  been  an  incessant 
activity  in  this  field,  not  only  in  Germany,  the  great  work- 


vl 


PREFACE  TO  THE  REVISED  EDITION. 


shop  of  critical  research,  but  in  all  other  Protestant  countries. 
Almost  every  inch  of  ground  has  been  disputed  and  defended 
with  a degree  of  learning,  acumen,  and  skill  such  as  were  never 
6pent  before  on  the  solution  of  historical  problems. 

In  this  process  of  reconstruction  the  first  volume  has  been 
more  than  doubled  in  size  and  grown  into  two  volumes.  The 
first  embraces  Apostolic,  the  second  post- Apostolic  or  ante- 
Nicene  Christianity.  This  first  volume  is  larger  than  my  sepa- 
rate “ History  of  the  Apostolic  Church,”  but  differs  from  it 
in  that  it  is  chiefly  devoted  to  the  theology  and  literature,  the 
other  to  the  mission  work  and  spiritual  life  of  that  period.  I 
have  studiously  avoided  repetition  and  seldom  looked  into  the 
older  book.  On  two  points  I have  changed  my  opinion — the 
second  Roman  captivity  of  Paul  (which  I am  disposed  to  admit 
in  the  interest  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles),  and  the  date  of  the 
Apocalypse  (which  I now  assign,  with  the  majority  of  modern 
critics,  to  the  year  68  or  69  instead  of  95,  as  before).1 

I express  my  deep  obligation  to  my  friend,  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot, 
a scholar  of  rare  learning  and  microscopic  accuracy,  for  his  kind 
and  valuable  assistance  in  reading  the  proof  and  suggesting 
many  improvements. 

The  second  volume,  likewise  thoroughly  revised  and  partly 
rewritten,  is  in  the  hands  of  the  printer ; the  third  requires 
very  few  changes.  Two  new  volumes,  one  on  the  History  of 
Mediaeval  Christianity,  and  one  on  the  Reformation  (to  the 
Westphalian  Treaty  and  the  Westminster  Assembly,  1648),  are 
in  an  advanced  stage  of  preparation. 

May  the  work  in  this  remodelled  shape  find  as  kind  and  in- 
dulgent readers  as  when  it  first  appeared.  My  highest  ambition 
in  this  sceptical  age  is  to  strengthen  the  faith  in  the  immovable 
historical  foundations  of  Christianity  and  its  victory  over  the 
world. 

Philip  S chaff. 

Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York, 

October,  1882. 


1 My  “ History  of  the  Apostolic  Church  ” (which  bears  a relation  to  my  “His- 
tory of  the  Christian  Church,”  similar  to  that  which  Neander’s  “ History  of  the 
Planting  and  Training  of  the  Christian  Church  by  the  Apostles”  bears  to 
his  “General  History  of  the  Christian  Religion  and  Church”)  appeared  in 
German  at  Mercersburg,  Pa.,  1851,  then  in  a revised  edition,  Leipzig,  1854, 
in  an  English  translation  by  the  late  Dr.  Yeomans,  New  York,  1858,  at  Edin- 
burgh, 1854  (in  2 vols.),  and  several  times  since  without  change.  Should 
there  be  a demand  for  a new  edition,  I intend  to  make  a number  of  improve- 
ments, which  are  ready  in  manuscript,  especially  in  the  General  Introduction, 
which  covers  134  pages.  The  first  volume  of  my  Church  History  (from  A.D.  1 
to  311)  was  first  published  in  New  York,  1858  (and  in  German  at  Leipzig, 
1867) ; but  when  I began  the  revision,  I withdrew  it  from  sale.  The  Apostolic 
Age  there  occupies  only  140,  the  whole  volume  535  pages. 


FROM  THE  PREFACE  TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION 


Encouraged  by  the  favorable  reception  of  my  “ History  of  the  Apostolic 
Church,”  I now  offer  to  the  public  a History  of  the  Primitive  Church  from 
the  birth  of  Christ  to  the  reign  of  Constantine,  as  an  independent  and 
complete  work  in  itself,  and  at  the  same  time  as  the  first  volume  of  a 
general  history  of  Christianity,  which  I hope,  with  the  help  of  God,  to 
bring  down  to  the  present  age. 

The  church  of  the  first  three  centuries,  or  the  ante-Nicene  age,  pos- 
sesses a peculiar  interest  for  Christians  of  all  denominations,  and  has 
often  been  separately  treated,  by  Eusebius,  Mosheim,  Milman,  Kaye, 
Baur,  Hagenbach,  and  other  distinguished  historians.  It  is  the  daughter 
of  Apostolic  Christianity,  which  itself  constitutes  the  first  and  by  far  the 
most  important  chapter  in  its  history,  and  the  common  mother  of  Catho- 
licism and  Protestantism,  though  materially  differing  from  both.  It  pre- 
sents a state  of  primitive  simplicity  and  purity  unsullied  by  contact  with 
the  secular  power,  but  with  this  also,  the  fundamental  forms  of  heresy 
and  corruption,  which  reappear  from  time  to  time  under  new  names  and 
aspects,  but  must  serve,  in  the  overruling  providence  of  God,  to  promote 
the  cause  of  truth  and  righteousness.  It  is  the  heroic  age  of  the  church, 
and  unfolds  before  us  the  sublime  spectacle  of  our  holy  religion  in  intel- 
lectual and  moral  conflict  with  the  combined  superstition,  policy,  and 
wisdom  of  ancient  Judaism  and  Paganism  ; yet  growing  in  persecution, 
conquering  in  death,  and  amidst  the  severest  trials  giving  birth  to  princi- 
ples and  institutions  which,  in  more  matured  form,  still  control  the 
greater  part  of  Christendom. 

Without  the  least  disposition  to  detract  from  the  merits  of  my  numer- 
ous predecessors,  to  several  of  whom  I feel  deeply  indebted,  I have  rea- 
son to  hope  that  this  new  attempt  at  a historical  reproduction  of  ancient 
Christianity  will  meet  a want  in  our  theological  literature  and  commend 
itself,  both  by  its  spirit  and  method,  and  by  presenting  with  the  authors 
own  labors  the  results  of  the  latest  German  and  English  research,  to  the 


Vlll 


FROM  THE  PREFACE  TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION. 


respectful  attention  of  the  American  student.  Having  no  sectarian  ends 
to  serve,  I have  confined  myself  to  the  duty  of  a witness — to  tell  the 
truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth ; always  remembering, 
however,  that  history  has  a soul  as  well  as  a body,  and  that  the  ruling 
ideas  and  general  principles  must  be  represented  no  less  than  the  out- 
ward facts  and  dates.  A church  history  without  the  life  of  Christ  glow- 
ing through  its  pages  could  give  us  at  best  only  the  picture  of  a temple 
stately  and  imposing  from  without,  but  vacant  and  dreary  within,  a 
mummy  in  praying  posture  perhaps  and  covered  with  trophies,  but 
withered  and  unclean : such  a history  is  not  worth  the  trouble  of  writing 
or  reading.  Let  the  dead  bury  their  dead ; we  prefer  to  live  among  the 
living,  and  to  record  the  immortal  thoughts  and  deeds  of  Christ  in  and 
through  his  people,  rather  than  dwell  upon  the  outer  hulls,  the  trifling 
accidents  and  temporary  scaffolding  of  history,  or  give  too  much  promi 
nence  to  Satan  and  his  infernal  tribe,  whose  works  Christ  came  to  destroy. 

The  account  of  the  apostolic  period,  which  forms  the  divine-human 
basis  of  the  whole  structure  of  history,  or  the  ever-living  fountain  of  the 
unbroken  stream  of  the  church,  is  here  necessarily  short  and  not  in- 
tended to  supersede  my  larger  work,  although  it  presents  more  than  a 
mere  summary  of  it,  and  views  the  subject  in  part  under  new  aspects. 
For  the  history  of  the  second  period,  which  constitutes  the  body  of  this 
volume,  large  use  has  been  made  of  the  new  sources  of  information 
recently  brought  to  light,  such  as  the  Syriac  and  Armenian  Ignatius,  and 
especially  the  Philosophoumena  of  Hippolytus.  The  bold  and  searching 
criticism  of  modern  German  historians  as  applied  to  the  apostolic  and 
post-apostolic  literature,  though  often  arbitrary  and  untenable  in  its  re- 
sults, has  nevertheless  done  good  service  by  removing  old  prejudices, 
placing  many  things  in  a new  light,  and  conducing  to  a comprehensive 
and  organic  view  of  the  living  process  and  gradual  growth  of  ancient 
Christianity  in  its  distinctive  character,  both  in  its  unity  with,  and  dif- 
ference from,  the  preceding  age  of  the  apostles  and  the  succeeding  sys- 
tems of  Catholicism  and  Protestantism. 

And  now  I commit  this  work  to  the  great  Head  of  the  church  with 
the  prayer  that,  under  his  blessing,  it  may  aid  in  promoting  a correct 
knowledge  of  his  heavenly  kingdom  on  earth,  and  in  setting  forth  its 
history  as  a book  of  life,  a storehouse  of  wisdom  and  piety,  and  the 
surest  test  of  his  own  promise  to  his  people : “ Lo,  I am  with  you 
alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.” 

P.  S. 

Theological  Seminary,  Mercersburg,  Pennsylvania, 

November  8,  1858. 


CONTENTS 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

PAGE 

§ 1.  Nature  of  Church  History,  , 1 

§ 2.  Branches  of  Church  History, 6 

§ 8.  Sources  of  Church  History, 11 

§ 4.  Periods  of  Church  History, 13 

§ 5.  Uses  of  Church  History, ,,.20 

§ 6.  Duty  of  the  Historian, 22 

§ 7.  Literature  of  Church  History,  •••••..27 


FIRST  PERIOD 

APOSTOLIC  CHRISTIANITY 
A.D.  1-100. 

CHAPTER  I 

PREPARATION  FOR  CHRISTIANITY 

| 8.  Central  Position  of  Christ  in  the  History  of  the  World,  . . 56 

§ 9.  Judaism, 59 

§ 10.  The  Law  and  the  Prophecy,  ••...••66 

§ 11.  Heathenism, 71 

§ 12.  Grecian  Literature  and  the  Roman  Empire,  . . • .76 

§ 13.  Judaism  and  Heathenism  in  Contact,  . • . • • 85 


X 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  II. 

JESUS  CHRIST. 

§14.  Sources  and  Literature, • . 90 

§ 15.  The  Founder  of  Christianity, . . 100 

§ 16.  Chronology  of  the  Life  of  Christ,  . • . . . .111 

§ 17.  The  Land  and  the  People, 136 

§18.  Apocryphal  Traditions, 162 

§ 19.  The  Resurrection  of  Christ, 172 

CHAPTER  III 

THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE. 

§ 20.  Sources  and  Literature  of  the  Apostolic  Age,  ....  187 

§ 21.  General  Character  of  the  Apostolic  Age.  Peter,  Paul,  John,  . 194 

§ 22.  The  Critical  Reconstruction  of  the  History  of  the  Apostolic  Age,  205 
§ 23.  Chronology  of  the  Apostolic  Age, 217 

CHAPTER  IY 

ST.  PETER  AND  THE  CONVERSION  OF  THE  JEWS 
(Map  of  Palestine.) 

§ 24.  The  Miracle  of  Pentecost  and  the  Birthday  of  the  Christian 

Church,  a.  d.  30,  .........  224 

§ 25.  The  Church  of  Jerusalem  and  the  Labors  of  Peter,  . . . 245 

§ 26.  The  Peter  of  History  and  the  Peter  of  Fiction,  ....  253 

§ 27.  James,  the  Brother  of  the  Lord, 264 

§ 28.  Preparation  for  the  Mission  to  the  Gentiles,  ....  278 

CHAPTER  Y 

ST.  PAUL  AND  THE  CONVERSION  OF  THE  GENTILES 
(Map  of  Paul’s  Journeys.) 

§ 29.  Sources  and  Literature, 281 

§ 30.  Paul  Before  his  Conversion,  286 

§ 31.  The  Conversion  of  Paul,  ........  296 

§ 32.  The  Work  of  Paul, 316 

§ 33.  Paul’s  Missionary  Labors,  .....••  322 

§ 34.  The  Synod  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  Compromise  between  Jewish 

and  Gentile  Christianity,  .......  334 

§ 35.  The  Conservative  Reaction,  and  the  Liberal  Victory — Peter  and 

Paul  at  Antioch, 352 

§ 36.  Christianity  in  Rome, . 360 


CONTENTS 


XI 


CnAPTER  VI 

THE  GREAT  TRIBULATION. 

§ 37.  The  Roman  Conflagration  .and  the  Neronian  Persecution,  . 376 

§ 38.  The  Jewish  War  and  the  Destruction  of  Jerusalem,  . . . 390 

§ 39.  Effects  of  the  Destruction  of  Jerusalem  on  the  Christian  Church,  402 

CHAPTER  VII 

ST.  JOHN  AND  THE  LAST  STADIUM  OP  TIIE  APOSTOLIC  PERIOD — THE  CON- 
SOLIDATION OP  JEWISH  AND  GENTILE  CHRISTIANITY. 

(Map  of  Asia  Minor.) 

§ 40.  The  Johannean  Literature,  ........  406 

§ 41.  Life  and  Character  of  John, 412 

§ 42.  Apostolic  Labors  of  John, 423 

§ 43.  Traditions  Respecting  John,  429 

CHAPTER  VIII 

CHRISTIAN  LIFE  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 

§ 44.  The  Spiritual  Power  of  Christianity, 432 

§ 45.  The  Spiritual  Gifts, 436 

§ 46.  Christianity  in  Individuals, 441 

§ 47.  Christianity  and  the  Family, 443 

§ 48.  Christianity  and  Slavery,  ........  444 

§ 49.  Christianity  and  Society, 448 

§ 50.  Spiritual  Condition  of  the  Congregations — The  Seven  Churches 

in  Asia, 450 

CHAPTER  IX 

WORSHIP  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

§ 51.  The  Synagogue, 455 

$ 52.  Christian  Worship, 460 

§ 53.  The  Several  Parts  of  Worship,  ......  461 

§ 54.  Baptism, 465 

§ 55.  The  Lord’s  Supper, 471 

§ 56.  Sacred  Places, 475 

§ 57.  Sacred  Times — The  Lord’s  Day, 476 


CONTENTS 


Xll 

CHAPTER  X 

ORGANIZATION  OP  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH 

§ 58.  Literature, 481 

§ 59.  The  Christian  Ministry,  and  its  Relation  to  the  Christian  Com- 
munity,   . 484 

§ 60.  Apostles,  Prophets,  Evangelists, 488 

§ 61.  Presbyters  or  Bishops — The  Angels  of  the  Seven  Churches — 

James  of  Jerusalem,  491 

§ 62.  Deacons  and  Deaconesses, 499 

§ 63.  Church  Discipline, 501 

§ 64.  The  Council  at  Jerusalem, 503 

§ 65.  The  Church  and  the  Kingdom  of  Christ,  • • • • • 506 

CHAPTER  XL 

THEOLOGY  OP  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH 

§ 66.  Literature, . . .510 

§ 67.  Unity  of  Apostolic  Teaching,  511 

§ 68.  Different  Types  of  Apostolic  Teaching, 515 

§ 69.  The  Jewish  Christian  Theology — I.  James  and  the  Gospel  of 

Law, 517 

§ 70.  II.  Peter  and  the  Gospel  of  Hope, 522 

§ 71.  The  Gentile  Christian  Theology — Paul  and  the  Gospel  of 

Faith, 525 

§ 72.  John  and  the  Gospel  of  Love,  549 

§ 73.  Heretical  Perversions  of  the  Apostolic  Teaching,  . . . 564 

CHAPTER  XII 

THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

§ 74.  Literature, 569 

§ 75.  Rise  of  the  Apostolic  Literature,  ......  570 

§ 76.  Character  of  the  New  Testament, 573 

§ 77.  Literature  on  the  Gospels, 575 

§ 78.  The  Four  Gospels, 579 

§ 79.  The  Synoptists, 590 

§ 80.  Matthew, 612 

§ 81.  Mark, 627 

§ 82.  Luke,  • 648 

§ 83.  John, 675 

§ 84.  Critical  Review  of  the  Johannean  Problem,  ....  715 

§ 85.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  .......  724 


C0NTENT8 


xm 


§ 86.  The  Epiatlea, 739 

§ 87.  The  Catholic  Epistles  (James,  Peter,  John,  Jude),  • . • 741 

§ 88.  The  Epistles  of  Paul, 749 

§ 89.  The  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians, 755 

§ 90.  The  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  .••••••  757 

§91.  The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  .......  762 

§ 92.  The  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  ...••••  764 

§ 93.  The  Epistles  of  the  Captivity,  ....*..  767 

§ 94.  The  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  769 

§ 95.  The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians, 776 

§ 96.  Colossians  and  Ephesians  Compared  and  Vindicated,  . • . 782 

§ 97.  The  Epistle  to  the  Philippians, 788 

§ 98.  The  Epistle  to  Philemon, 793 

§ 99.  The  Pastoral  Epistles,  . . 798 

§ 100.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  .......  808 

§101.  The  Apocalypse, 825 

§ 102.  Concluding  Reflections— Faith  and  Criticism,  ....  853 

Alphabetical  Index, 865 


LIST  OF  MAPS 


PAGE 

The  Roman  Empire, . Frontispiece. 

Palestine  in  the  Time  of  Christ,  ......  223 

The  Missionary  Journeys  of  St.  Paul,  • • • • • 280 

Rome, 361 

Ancient  Jerusalem,  •••••«•••  395 
Asia  Minor,  •••••••••••  405 


ADDENDA 


(Fifth  Edition .) 


Since  the  third  revision  of  this  volume  in  1889,  the  following  works 

deserving  notice  have  appeared  till  September,  1893.  (P.  S.) 

Page  2 . After  ‘ ‘ Nirsclil  ” add  : 

E.  Bernheim  : Lehrbuch  der  historischen  Methode.  Mit  Nachweis  der 
wichtigsten  Quellen  und  Hilfsmittel  zum  Studium  der  Geschichte. 
Leipzig,  1889. 

Edward  Bratke  : Wegweiser  zur  Quellen-  und  Liter aturkunde  der 

Kirchengeschichte.  Gotha,  1890  (282  pp.). 

Page  35,  line  9 : 

H.  Bruck  (Mainz,  5th  ed.,  1890). 

Page  45  : 

Of  the  Church  History  of  Kurtz  (who  died  at  Marburg,  1890),  an  11th 
revised  edition  appeared  in  1891. 

Wilhelm  Moller  (d.  at  Kiel,  1891)  : Lehrbuch  der  Kirchengeschichte. 
Freiburg,  1891.  2 vols.,  down  to  the  Reformation.  Vol.  III.  to 

be  added  by  Kawerau.  Vol.  I.  translated  by  Rutherford.  Lon- 
don, 1892. 

Karl  Muller  (Professor  in  Breslau) : Kirchengeschichte.  Freiburg, 
1892.  A second  volume  will  complete  the  work.  An  excellent 
manual  from  the  school  of  Ritsclil-Harnack. 

Harnack’s  large  Lehrbuch  der  Dogmengeschichte  was  completed  in  1890 
in  3 vols.  Of  his  Grundriss,  a 2d  ed.  appeared  in  1893  (386  pp.) ; 
translated  by  Edwin  K.  Mitchell,  of  Hartford,  Conn.  : Outlines  of 
the  History  of  Dogma.  New  York,  1893. 

Friedrich  Loofs  (Professor  of  Church  History  in  Halle,  of  the  Ritsclil- 
Harnack  school)  : Leitfaden  zum  Studium  der  Dogmengeschichte . 
Halle,  1889  ; 3d  ed.,  1893. 

Page  51.  After  “ Schaff  ” add : 

5th  revision,  1889-93,  7 vols.  (including  vol.  v.,  which  is  in  press). 

Page  51.  After  “Fisher”  add  : 

John  Fletcher  Hurst  (Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church) : 
Short  History  of  the  Christian  Church.  New  York,  1893. 


ADDENDA 


XV 


Page  61.  After  “ Kittel  ” add : 

Franz  Delitzsch  (d.  1890)  : Messianische  Weissagungen  in  geschicht- 
licher  Folge.  Leipzig,  1890.  His  last  work.  Translated  by  Sam. 
Ives  Curtiss  (of  Chicago),  Edinb.  and  New  York,  1892. 

Page  97 : 

Samuel  J.  Andrews  : Life  of  our  Loi’d.  “ A new  and  wholly  revised 
edition.”  New  York,  1891  (651  pp.).  With  maps  and  illustrations. 
Maintains  the  quadri-paschal  theory.  Modest,  reverent,  accurate, 
devoted  chiefly  to  the  chronological  and  topographical  relations. 

Page  183  add  : 

On  the  Apocryphal  Traditions  of  Christ,  comp,  throughout 

Alfred  Resch  : Agrapha.  Aussercanonische  Evangelienf ragmen te  ge- 
sammelt  und  untersucht.  With  an  appendix  of  Harnack  on  the 
Gospel  Fragment  of  Tajjum.  Leipzig,  1889  (520  pp.).  By  far  the 
most  complete  and  critical  work  on  the  extra-canonical  sayings  of 
our  Lord,  of  which  he  collects  and  examines  63  (see  p.  80),  in- 
cluding many  doubtful  ones,  e.g.,  the  mucli-discussed  passage  of 
the  Didache  (I.  6)  on  the  sweating  of  aloes. 

Page  247 : 

Abb6  Constant  Fouard  : Saint  Peter  and  the  First  Years  of  Christianity. 
Translated  from  the  second  French  edition  with  the  author’s  sanc- 
tion, by  George  F.  X.  Griffith.  With  an  Introduction  by  Cardinal 
Gibbons.  New  York  and  London,  1892  (pp.  xxvi,  422).  The  most 
learned  work  in  favor  of  the  traditional  Roman  theory  of  a twenty- 
five  years’  pontificate  of  Peter  in  Rome  from  42  to  67. 

The  apocryphal  literature  of  Peter  has  received  an  important  addition 
by  the  discovery  of  fragments  of  the  Greek  Gospel  and  Apocalypse 
of  Peter  in  a tomb  at  Aklimim  in  Egypt.  See  Harnack’s  ed.  of  the 
Greek  text  with  a German  translation  and  commentary,  Berlin, 
1892  (revised,  1893)  ; Zahn’s  edition  and  discussion,  Leipzig,  1893; 
and  O.  von  Gebliardt’s  facsimile  ed. , Leipzig,  1893 ; also  the 
English  translation  by  J.  Rendel  Harris,  London,  1893. 

Page  284.  Add  to  lit.  on  the  life  of  Paul : 

W.  H.  Ramsey  (Professor  of  Humanity  in  the  University  of  Aberdeen) : 
The  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire  before  a.  d.  170.  With  Maps  and 
Illustrations.  London  and  New  York,  1893  (494  pp.).  An  impor- 
tant work,  for  which  the  author  received  a gold  medal  from  Pope 
Leo  XIII.  The  first  part  (pp.  3-168)  treats  of  the  missionary 
journeys  of  Paul  in  Asia  Minor,  on  the  ground  of  careful  topo- 
graphical exploration  and  with  a full  knowledge  of  Roman  history 
at  that  time.  He  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  nearly  all  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  can  no  more  be  forgeries  of  the  second  cen- 
tury than  the  works  of  Horace  and  Virgil  can  be  forgeries  of  the 


xvi 


ADDENDA. 


time  of  Nero.  He  assumes  a “ travel -document,”  which  was  written 
down  under  the  immediate  influence  of  Paul,  and  underlies  the  ac- 
count in  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (chs.  13-21),  which  he  calls  “ an 
authority  of  the  highest  character  for  an  historian  of  Asia  Minor  ” 
(p.  168) . He  affirms  the  genuineness  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  which 
suit  the  close  of  the  Neronian  period  (246  sqq.),  and  combats  Holtz- 
mann.  He  puts  II  Peter  to  the  age  of  “ The  Shepherd  of  Hermas  ” 
before  130  (p.  432).  As  to  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  he  assumes 
that  it  was  written  about  80,  soon  after  Vespasian’s  resumption  of  the 
Neronian  policy  (279  sqq.).  If  this  date  is  correct,  it  would  follow 
either  that  Peter  cannot  have  been  the  author,  or  that  he  must  have 
long  outlived  the  Neronian  persecution.  The  tradition  that  he  died 
a martyr  in  Rome  is  early  and  universal,  but  the  exact  date  of  his 
death  is  uncertain. 

Page  285  insert : 

Of  Weizsacker’s  Das  Apostolische  Zeitalter , which  is  chiefly  devoted  to 
Paul,  a second  edition  has  appeared  in  1892,  slightly  revised  and 
provided  with  an  alphabetical  index  (770  pp.).  It  is  the  best  criti- 
cal history  of  the  Apostolic  age  from  the  school  of  Dr.  Baur,  whom 
Dr.  Weizsacker  succeeded  as  professor  of  Church  history  in  Tu- 
bingen, but  gives  no  references  to  literature  and  other  opinions. 

Charles  Carroll  Everett  : The  Gospel  of  Paul.  New  York,  1893. 

Page  360 : 

Rodolfo  Lanciani  : Pagan  and  Christian  Rome.  New  York,  1893 
(pp.  x,  374).  A very  important  work  which  shows  from  recent  ex- 
plorations that  Christianity  entered  more  deeply  into  Roman  So- 
ciety in  the  first  century  than  is  usually  supposed. 

Page  401  add : 

Henry  William  Watkins  : Modern  Criticism  in  its  relation  to  the  Fourth 
Gospel;  being  the  Damp  ton  Lectures  for  1890.  London,  1890.  Only 
the  external  evidence,  but  with  a history  of  opinions  since  Breit- 
schneider’s  Probabilia. 

Paton  J.  Gloag  : Introduction  to  the  Johannine  Writings.  London,  1891 
(pp.  440).  Discusses  the  critical  questions  connected  with  the 
Gospel,  the  Epistles,  and  the  Apocalypse  of  John  from  a liberal 
conservative  standpoint. 

E.  Schurer  : On  the  Genuineness  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  In  the  “ Con- 
temporary Review  ” for  September,  1891. 

Page  484 : 

E.  Loening  : Die  Gemeindeverfassung  des  Urchristenthums.  Halle,  1889 
— Ch.  de  Smedt  : V organisation  des  eglises  chretiennes  jusquyau 
milieu  du  3e  siicle.  1889. 


ADDENDA. 


xvii 


Page  569.  Add  to  literature  : 

Gregory  : Prolegomena  to  Tischendorf \ Pt.  II.,  1890.  (Pt.  III.  will 
complete  this  work.) 

Schaff  : Companion  to  the  Greek  Testament , 4tli  ed.  revised,  1892. 

Salmon  : Introduction  to  the  New  Testament , 5th  ed.,  1890. 

Holtzmann  : Introduction  to  the  New  Testament , 3d  ed.,  1892. 

F.  Godet  : Introduction  au  Nouveau  Testament.  Neuchatel,  1893.  The 
first  volume  contains  the  Introduction  to  the  Pauline  Epistles; 
the  second  and  third  will  contain  the  Introduction  to  the  Gospels, 
the  Catholic  Epp.  and  the  Revelation.  To  be  translated. 

Page  576 : 

Robinson’s  Harmony , revised  edition,  by  M.  B.  Riddle  (Professor  in 
Allegheny  Theological  Seminary),  New  York,  1885. 

Page  724 : 

Friedrich  Spitta  : Die  Apostelgeschichtey  ihre  Quellen  und  ihr  historischer 
Wert.  Halle,  1891  (pp.  380).  It  is  briefly  criticised  by  Ramsey. 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 


LITERATURE 

C.  Sagittarius  : Introductio  in  historiam  ecclesiasticam.  Jen.  1694. 

F.  Walch  : Gh'undsdtze  der  zur  K.  Gesch.  notliigen  Vorbereitungslehren 
Biicherkenntnisse.  3d  ed.  Giessen,  1793. 

Flugge  : Einleitung  in  das  Studium  u.  die  Liter,  der  K.  G.  Gott.  1801. 
John  G.  Dowling  : An  Introduction  to  the  Critical  Study  of  Ecclesiastical 
History , attempted  in  an  account  of  the  progress , and  a short  notice  of 
the  sources  of  the  history  of  the  Church.  London,  1838. 

Mohler  (R.  C.)  : Einleitung  in  die  K.  G.  1839  (“Verm.  Schriften,”  ed. 
Bollinger,  II.  261  sqq.). 

Kliefqth  : Einleitung  in  die  Dogmengeschichte.  Parchim  & Ludwigslust, 
1839. 

Philip  Schaff  : What  is  Church  History  ? A Vindication  of  the  Idea  of 
Historical  Development.  Philad.  1846. 

H.  B.  Smith  : Nature  and  Worth  of  the  Science  of  Church  History.  An- 
dover, 1851. 

E.  P.  Humphrey  : Inaugural  Address , delivered  at  the  Danville  Theol. 
Seminary.  Cincinnati,  1854. 

R.  Turnbull  : Christ  in  History ; or , the  Central  Power  among  Men. 
Bost.  1854,  2d  ed.  1860. 

W.  G.  T.  Shedd  : Lectures  on  the  Philosophy  of  History . Andover,  Mass., 
1856. 

R.  D.  Hitchcock  : The  True  Idea  and  Uses  of  Church  History.  N.  York, 
1856. 

C.  Bunsen  : Gott  in  der  Geschichte  oder  der  Fortschritt  des  Glauhens  an 
eine  sittliche  Weltordnung.  Bd.  I.  Leipz.  1857.  (Erstes  Bnch. 
Allg.  Einleit.  p.  1-134.)  Engl.  Transl.  : God  in  History.  By  S. 
Winkworth.  Lond.  1868.  3 vols. 

A.  P.  Stanley  : Three  Introductory  Lectures  on  the  Study  of  Eccles.  His- 
tory. Lond.  1857.  (Also  incorporated  in  his  History  of  the  Eastern. 
Church , 1861.) 


2 


§ 1.  NATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


GoiiDwiN  Smith  : Lectures  on  the  Study  of  History , delivered  in  Oxford, 
1859-’61.  Oxf.  and  Lond.  (republished  in  N.  York)  1866. 

J.  Gust.  Droysen  : Grundriss  der  Historik.  Leipz.  1868 ; new  ed.  1882. 
C.  de  Smedt  (R.  C. ) : Introductio  generalis  ad  historiam  ecclesiasticam  cri- 
tice  tractandam.  Gandavi  (Ghent),  1876  (533  pp.). 

E.  A.  Freeman  : The  Methods  of  Historical  Study.  Lond.  1886. 

O.  Lorenz  : Geschichtswissenschaft.  Berlin,  1886. 

Jos.  Nirsckl  (R.  C.) : Propadeutik  der  Kirchengeschichte.  Mainz,  1888 
(352  pp.). 

On  the  philosophy  of  history  in  general,  see  the  works  of  Herder  ( Ideen 
zur  Philosophic  der  Gesch.  der  Menschheit),  Fred.  Schlegel,  Heged 
(1840,  transl.  by  Sibree,  1870),  Hermann  (1870),  Rocholl  (1878), 
Flint  (The  Philosophy  of  History  in  Europe.  Edinb.,  1874,  etc.), 
Lotze  ( Mikrokosmus , Bk.  viith  ; 4th  ed.  1884  ; Eng.  transl.  by  Eliza- 
beth Hamilton  and  E.  E.  C.  Jones,  1885,  3d  ed.  1888).  A philosophy  of 
church  history  is  a desideratum.  Herder  and  Lotze  come  nearest  to  it. 
A fuller  introduction,  see  in  Sohafp  : History  of  the  Apostolic  Church ; 
with  a General  Introduction  to  Ch.  H.  (N.  York,  1853),  pp.  1-134. 

§ 1.  Nature  of  Church  History . 

History  has  two  sides,  a divine  and  a human.  On  the  part 
of  God,  it  is  his  revelation  in  the  order  of  time  (as  the  creation 
is  his  revelation  in  the  order  of  space),  and  the  successive  un- 
folding of  a plan  of  infinite  wisdom,  justice,  and  mercy,  looking 
to  his  glory  and  the  eternal  happiness  of  mankind.  On  the 
part  of  man,  history  is  the  biography  of  the  human  race,  and 
the  gradual  development,  both  normal  and  abnormal,  of  all  its 
physical,  intellectual,  and  moral  forces  to  the  final  consumma- 
tion at  the  general  judgment,  with  its  eternal  rewards  and 
punishments.  The  idea  of  universal  history  presupposes  the 
Christian  idea  of  the  unity  of  God,  and  the  unity  and  com- 
mon destiny  of  men,  and  was  unknown  to  ancient  Greece  and 
Rome.  A view  of  history  which  overlooks  or  undervalues  the 
divine  factor  starts  from  deism  and  consistently  runs  into  athe- 
ism ; while  the  opposite  view,  which  overlooks  the  free  agency  of 
man  and  his  moral  responsibility  and  guilt,  is  essentially  fatal- 
istic and  pantheistic. 

From  the  human  agency  we  may  distinguish  the  Satanic, 
which  enters  as  a third  power  into  the  history  of  the  race.  In 


§ 1.  NATURE  OF  CHUUCII  HISTORY. 


3 


the  temptation  of  Adam  in  Paradise,  the  temptation  of  Christ 
in  the  wilderness,  and  at  every  great  epoch,  Satan  appears  as 
the  antagonist  of  God,  endeavoring  to  defeat  the  plan  of  re- 
demption and  the  progress  of  Christ’s  kingdom,  and  using 
weak  and  wicked  men  for  his  schemes,  but  is  always  defeated 
in  the  end  by  the  superior  wisdom  of  God. 

The  central  current  and  ultimate  aim  of  universal  history  is 
the  Kingdom  of  God  established  by  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the 
grandest  and  most  comprehensive  institution  in  the  world,  as 
vast  as  humanity  and  as  enduring  as  eternity.  All  other  insti- 
tutions are  made  subservient  to  it,  and  in  its  interest  the  whole 
world  is  governed.  It  is  no  after-thought  of  God,  no  subse- 
quent emendation  of  the  plan  of  creation,  but  it  is  the  eternal 
forethought,  the  controlling  idea,  the  beginning,  the  middle, 
and  the  end  of  all  his  ways  and  works.  The  first  Adam  is  a 
type  of  the  second  Adam ; creation  looks  to  redemption  as  the 
solution  of  its  problems.  Secular  history,  far  from  controlling 
sacred  history,  is  controlled  by  it,  must  directly  or  indirectly 
subserve  its  ends,  and  can  only  be  fully  understood  in  the  cen- 
tral light  of  Christian  truth  and  the  plan  of  salvation.  The 
Father,  who  directs  the  history  of  the  world,  “ draws  to  the 
Son,”  who  rules  the  history  of  the  church,  and  the  Son  leads 
back  to  the  Father,  that  “God  may  be  all  in  all.”  “All 
things,”  says  St.  Paul,  “ were  created  through  Christ  and  unto 
Christ:  and  He  is  before  all  things,  and  in  Him  all  things  hold 
together.  And  He  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  Church : who 
is  the  beginning,  the  firstborn  from  the  dead,  that  in  all  things 
He  may  have  the  pre-eminence.”  Col.  1 : 16-18.  “ The  Gos- 

pel,” says  John  von  Muller,  summing  up  the  final  result  of  his 
life-long  studies  in  history,  “ is  the  fulfilment  of  all  hopes,  the 
perfection  of  all  philosophy,  the  interpreter  of  all  revolutions, 
the  key  of  all  seeming  contradictions  of  the  physical  and  moral 
worlds  ; it  is  life — it  is  immortality.” 

The  history  of  the  church  is  the  rise  and  progress  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  upon  earth,  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the 
salvation  of  the  world.  It  begins  with  the  creation  of  Adam, 


4 


§ 1.  NATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


and  with  that  promise  of  the  serpent-bruiser,  which  relieved 
the  loss  of  the  paradise  of  innocence  by  the  hope  of  future 
redemption  from  the  curse  of  sin.  It  comes  down  through  the 
preparatory  revelations  under  the  patriarchs,  Moses,  and  the 
prophets,  to  the  immediate  forerunner  of  the  Saviour,  who 
pointed  his  followers  to  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away 
the  sin  of  the  world.  But  this  part  of  its  course  was  only 
introduction.  Its  proper  starting-point  is  the  incarnation  of 
the  Eternal  Word,  who  dwelt  among  us  and  revealed  his  glory, 
the  glory  as  of  the  only-begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of  grace 
and  truth  ; and  next  to  this,  the  miracle  of  the  first  Pentecost, 
when  the  Church  took  her  place  as  a Christian  institution,  filled 
with  the  Spirit  of  the  glorified  Bedeemer  and  entrusted  with 
the  conversion  of  all  nations.  Jesus  Christ,  the  God-Man  and 
Saviour  of  the  world,  is  the  author  of  the  new  creation,  the  soul 
and  the  head  of  the  church,  which  is  his  body  and  his  bride. 
In  his  person  and  work  lies  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  and 
of  renewed  humanity,  the  whole  plan  of  redemption,  and  the 
key  of  all  history  from  the  creation  of  man  in  the  image  of 
God  to  the  resurrection  of  the  body  unto  everlasting  life. 

This  is  the  objective  conception  of  church  history. 

In  the  subjective  sense  of  the  word,  considered  as  theological 
science  and  art,  church  history  is  the  faithful  and  life-like 
description  of  the  origin  and  progress  of  this  heavenly  king- 
dom. It  aims  to  reproduce  in  thought  and  to  embody  in  lan- 
guage its  outward  and  inward  development  down  to  the  present 
time.  It  is  a continuous  commentary  on  the  Lord’s  twin  para- 
bles of  the  mustard-seed  and  of  the  leaven.  It  shows  at  once 
how  Christianity  spreads  over  the  world,  and  how  it  penetrates, 
transforms,  and  sanctifies  the  individual  and  all  the  depart- 
ments and  institutions  of  social  life.  It  thus  embraces  not  only 
the  external  fortunes  of  Christendom,  but  more  especially  her 
inward  experience,  her  religious  life,  her  mental  and  moral 
activity,  her  conflicts  with  the  ungodly  world,  her  sorrows  and 
sufferings,  her  joys  and  her  triumphs  over  sin  and  error.  It 
records  the  deeds  of  those  heroes  of  faith  “ who  subdued  king- 


§ 1.  NATURE  OF  CHURCII  HISTORY.  5 

doms,  wrought  righteousness,  obtained  promises,  stopped  the 
mouths  of  lions,  quenched  the  violence  of  fire,  escaped  the  edge 
of  the  sword,  out  of  weakness  were  made  strong,  waxed  valiant 
in  fight,  turned  to  flight  the  armies  of  aliens.” 

From  Jesus  Christ,  since  his  manifestation  in  the  flesh,  an 
unbroken  stream  of  divine  light  and  life  has  been  and  is  still 
flowing,  and  will  continue  to  flow,  in  ever-growing  volume, 
through  the  waste  of  our  fallen  race ; and  all  that  is  truly  great 
and  good  and  holy  in  the  annals  of  church  history  is  due,  ulti- 
mately, to  the  impulse  of  his  spirit.  He  is  the  fly-wheel  in  the 
world’s  progress.  But  he  works  upon  the  world  through  sinful 
and  fallible  men,  who,  while  as  self-conscious  and  free  agents 
they  are  accountable  for  all  their  actions,  must  still,  willing  or 
unwilling,  serve  the  great  purpose  of  God.  As  Christ,  in  the 
days  of  his  flesh,  was  hated,  mocked,  and  crucified,  his  church 
likewise  is  assailed  and  persecuted  by  the  powers  of  darkness 
The  history  of  Christianity  includes  therefore  a history  of  Anti- 
christ. With  an  unending  succession  of  works  of  saving  power 
and  manifestations  of  divine  truth  and  holiness,  it  uncovers  also 
a fearful  mass  of  corruption  and  error.  The  church  militant 
must,  from  its  very  nature,  be  at  perpetual  warfare  with  the 
world,  the  flesh,  and  the  devil,  both  without  and  within.  For 
as  Judas  sat  among  the  apostles,  so  “the  man  of  sin”  sits  in 
the  temple  of  God ; and  as  even  a Peter  denied  the  Lord, 
though  he  afterwards  wept  bitterly  and  regained  his  holy  office, 
so  do  many  disciples  in  all  ages  deny  him  in  word  and  in  deed. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  church  history  shows  that  God  is 
ever  stronger  than  Satan,  and  that  his  kingdom  of  light  puts 
the  kingdom  of  darkness  to  shame.  The  Lion  of  the  tribe  of 
Judah  has  bruised  the  head  of  the  serpent.  With  the  cruci- 
fixion of  Christ  his  resurrection  also  is  repeated  ever  anew  in 
the  history  of  his  church  on  earth ; and  there  has  never  yet 
been  a day  without  a witness  of  his  presence  and  power  order- 
ing all  things  according  to  his  holy  will.  For  he  has  received 
all  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth  for  the  good  of  his  people, 
and  from  his  heavenly  throne  he  rules  even  his  foes.  The  in- 


Q 


§ 2.  BRANCHES  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


fallible  word  of  promise,  confirmed  by  experience,  assures  us 
that  all  corruptions,  heresies,  and  schisms  must,  under  the 
guidance  of  divine  wisdom  and  love,  subserve  the  cause  of 
truth,  holiness,  and  peace ; till,  at  the  last  judgment,  Christ 
shall  make  his  enemies  his  footstool,  and  rule  undisputed  with 
the  sceptre  of  righteousness  and  peace,  and  his  church  shall 
realize  her  idea  and  destiny  as  “ the  fullness  of  him  that  filleth 
all  in  all.” 

Then  will  history  itself,  in  its  present  form,  as  a struggling 
and  changeful  development,  give  place  to  perfection,  and  the 
stream  of  time  come  to  rest  in  the  ocean  of  eternity,  but  this 
rest  will  be  the  highest  form  of  life  and  activity  in  God  and  for 
God. 


§ 2.  Branches  of  Church  History . 

The  kingdom  of  Christ,  in  its  principle  and  aim,  is  as  com- 
prehensive as  humanity.  It  is  truly  catholic  or  universal,  de- 
signed and  adapted  for  all  nations  and  ages,  for  all  the  powers 
of  the  soul,  and  all  classes  of  society.  It  breathes  into  the 
mind,  the  heart,  and  the  will  a higher,  supernatural  life,  and 
consecrates  the  family,  the  state,  science,  literature,  art,  and 
commerce  to  holy  ends,  till  finally  God  becomes  all  in  all. 
Even  the  body,  and  the  whole  visible  creation,  which  groans 
for  redemption  from  its  bondage  to  vanity  and  for  the  glorious 
liberty  of  the  children  of  God,  shall  share  in  this  universal 
transformation ; for  we  look  for  the  resurrection  of  the  body, 
and  for  the  new  earth,  wTherein  dwelletli  righteousness.  But 
we  must  not  identify  the  kingdom  of  God  with  the  visible 
church  or  churches,  which  are  only  its  temporary  organs  and 
agencies,  more  or  less  inadequate,  while  the  kingdom  itself  is 
more  comprehensive,  and  will  last  for  ever. 

Accordingly,  church  history  has  various  departments,  corre- 
sponding to  the  different  branches  of  secular  history  and  of 
natural  life.  The  principal  divisions  are  : 

I.  The  history  of  missions,  or  of  the  spread  of  Christianity 


§ 2.  BRANCHES  OF  CHURCH  niSTORY. 


7 


among  unconverted  nations,  whether  barbarous  or  civilized. 
This  work  must  continue,  till  “ the  fullness  of  the  Gentiles 
shall  come  in,”  and  “ Israel  shall  be  saved.”  The  lawr  of  tho 
missionary  progress  is  expressed  in  the  two  parables  of  the 
grain  of  mustard-seed  which  grows  into  a tree,  and  of  the  leaven 
which  gradually  pervades  the  whole  lump.  The  first  parable 
illustrates  the  outward  expansion,  the  second  the  all -penetrating 
and  transforming  power  of  Christianity.  It  is  difficult  to  con- 
vert a nation ; it  is  more  difficult  to  train  it  to  the  high  stand- 
ard of  the  gospel ; it  is  most  difficult  to  revive  and  reform  a 
dead  or  apostate  church. 

The  foreign  mission  work  has  achieved  three  great  conquests : 
first,  the  conversion  of  the  elect  remnant  of  the  Jews,  and  of 
civilized  Greeks  and  Romans,  in  the  first  three  centuries ; then 
the  conversion  of  the  barbarians  of  Northern  and  Western 
Europe,  in  the  middle  ages ; and  last,  the  combined  efforts  of 
various  churches  and  societies  for  the  conversion  of  the  savage 
races  in  America,  Africa,  and  Australia,  and  the  semi-civilized 
nations  of  Eastern  Asia,  in  our  own  time.  The  whole  non- 
Christian  world  is  now  open  to  missionary  labor,  except  the 
Mohammedan,  which  will  likewise  become  accessible  at  no  dis- 
tant day. 

The  domestic  or  home  mission  work  embraces  the  revival  of 
Christian  life  in  corrupt  or  neglected  portions  of  the  church  in 
old  countries,  the  supply  of  emigrants  in  new  countries  with 
the  means  of  grace,  and  the  labors  among  the  semi-heathenish 
populations  of  large  cities.  Here  we  may  mention  the  planting 
of  a purer  Christianity  among  the  petrified  sects  in  Bible  Lands, 
the  labors  of  the  Gustavus  Adolphus  Society,  and  the  Inner 
Mission  of  Germany,  the  American  Home  Missionary  Societies 
for  the  western  states  and  territories,  the  City  Mission  Societies 
in  London,  New  York,  and  other  fast-growing  cities. 

II.  The  history  of  persecution  by  hostile  powers ; as  by 
Judaism  and  Heathenism  in  the  first  three  centuries,  and  by 
Mohammedanism  in  the  middle  age.  This  apparent  repression 
of  the  church  proves  a purifying  process,  brings  out  the  moral 


8 


§ 2.  BRANCHES  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


heroism  of  martyrdom,  and  thus  works  in  the  end  for  the 
spread  and  establishment  of  Christianity.  “ The  blood  of  mar- 
tyrs is  the  seed  of  the  church.”  1 There  are  cases,  however, 
where  systematic  and  persistent  persecution  has  crushed  out  the 
church  or  reduced  it  to  a mere  shadow,  as  in  Palestine,  Egypt, 
and  North  Africa,  under  the  despotism  of  the  Moslems. 

Persecution,  like  missions,  is  both  foreign  and  domestic. 
Besides  being  assailed  from  without  by  the  followers  of  false 
religions,  the  church  suffers  also  from  intestine  wars  and  vio- 
lence. Witness  the  religious  wars  in  France,  Holland,  and 
England,  the  Thirty  Years’  War  in  Germany,  all  of  which  grew 
out  of  the  Protestant  Reformation  and  the  Papal  Reaction  ; 
the  crusade  against  the  Albigenses  and  Waldenses,  the  horrors 
of  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  the  massacre  of  the  Huguenots,  the 
dragonnades  of  Louis  XIV.,  the  crushing  out  of  the  Beforma- 
tion in  Bohemia,  Belgium,  and  Southern  Europe  ; but  also,  on 
the  Protestant  side,  the  persecution  of  Anabaptists,  the  burning 
of  Servetus  in  Geneva,  the  penal  laws  of  the  reign  of  Elizabeth 
against  Catholic  and  Puritan  Dissenters,  the  hanging  of  witches 
and  Quakers  in  New  England.  More  Christian  blood  has  been 
shed  by  Christians  than  by  heathens  and  Mohammedans. 

The  persecutions  of  Christians  by  Christians  form  the  satanic 
chapters,  the  fiendish  midnight  scenes,  in  the  history  of  the 
church.  But  they  show  also  the  gradual  progress  of  the  truly 
Christian  spirit  of  religious  toleration  and  freedom.  Persecu- 
tion exhausted  ends  in  toleration,  and  toleration  is  a step  to 
freedom.  The  blood  of  patriots  is  the  price  of  civil,  the  blood 
of  martyrs  the  price  of  religious  liberty.  The  conquest  is  dear, 
the  progress  slow  and  often  interrupted,  but  steady  and  irre- 
sistible. The  principle  of  intolerance  is  now  almost  universally 
disowned  in  the  Christian  world,  except  by  ultramontane  Ro- 


1 A well-known  saying  of  Tertullian,  who  lived  in  the  midst  of  persecution. 
A very  different  estimate  of  martyrdom  is  suggested  by  the  Arabic  proverb  •. 
“ The  ink  of  the  scholar  is  more  precious  than  the  blood  of  the  martyr.’' 
The  just  estimate  depends  on  the  quality  of  the  scholar  and  the  quality  of 
Vne  martyr,  and  the  cause  for  which  the  one  lives  and  the  other  dies. 


§ 2.  BRANCHES  OF  CIIURCII  HISTORY. 


9 


manism  (which  indirectly  reasserts  it  in  the  Papal  Syllabus  of 
18t>4) ; but  a ruling  church,  allied  to  the  state,  under  the  infiu- 
ence  of  selfish  human  nature,  and  relying  on  the  arm  of  flesh 
rather  than  the  power  of  truth,  is  always  tempted  to  impose  or 
retain  unjust  restrictions  on  dissenting  sects,  however  innocent 
and  useful  they  may  have  proved  to  be. 

In  the  United  States  all  Christian  denominations  and  sects 
are  placed  on  a basis  of  equality  before  the  law,  and  alike  pro- 
tected by  the  government  in  their  property  and  right  of  public 
worship,  yet  self-supporting  and  self-governing;  and,  in  turn, 
they  strengthen  the  moral  foundations  of  society  by  training 
loyal  and  virtuous  citizens.  Freedom  of  religion  must  be  recog- 
nized as  one  of  the  inalienable  rights  of  man,  which  lies  in  the 
sacred  domain  of  conscience,  beyond  the  restraint  and  control 
of  politics,  and  which  the  government  is  bound  to  protect  as 
much  as  any  other  fundamental  right.  Freedom  is  liable  to 
abuse,  and  abuse  may  be  punished.  But  Christianity  is  itself 
the  parent  of  true  freedom  from  the  bondage  of  sin  and  error, 
and  is  the  best  protector  and  regulator  of  freedom. 

III.  The  history  of  church  government  and  discipline.  The 
church  is  not  only  an  invisible  communion  of  saints,  but  at  the 
same  time  a visible  body,  needing  organs,  laws,  and  forms,  to 
regulate  its  activity.  Into  this  department  of  history  fall  the 
various  forms  of  church  polity:  the  apostolic,  the  primitive 
episcopal,  the  patriarchal,  the  papal,  the  consistorial,  the  pres- 
byterial,  the  congregational,  etc. ; and  the  history  of  the  law 
and  discipline  of  the  church,  and  her  relation  to  the  state,  under 
all  these  forms. 

IV.  The  history  of  worship,  or  divine  service,  by  which  the 
church  celebrates,  revives,  and  strengthens  her  fellowship  with 
her  divine  head.  This  falls  into  such  subdivisions  as  the  his- 
tory of  preaching,  of  catechisms,  of  liturgy,  of  rites  and  cere- 
monies, and  of  religious  art,  particularly  sacred  poetry  and 
music. 

The  history  of  church  government  and  the  history  of  worship 
are  often  put  together  under  the  title  of  Ecclesiastical  Antiqui- 


10 


§ 2.  BRANCHES  OF  CnURCH  HISTORY. 


ties  or  Archaeology,  and  commonly  confined  to  the  patristic  age, 
whence  most  of  the  catholic  institutions  and  usages  of  the 
church  date  their  origin.  But  they  may  as  well  be  extended  to 
the  formative  period  of  Protestantism. 

Y . The  history  of  Christian  life,  or  practical  morality  and 
religion : the  exhibition  of  the  distinguishing  virtues  and  vices 
of  different  ages,  of  the  development  of  Christian  philanthropy, 
the  regeneration  of  domestic  life,  the  gradual  abatement  and 
abolition  of  slavery  and  other  social  evils,  the  mitigation  and 
diminution  of  the  horrors  of  war,  the  reform  of  civil  law  and 
of  government,  the  spread  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  and  the 
whole  progress  of  civilization,  under  the  influence  of  Chris- 
tianity. 

YI.  The  history  of  theology,  or  of  Christian  learning  and 
literature.  Each  branch  of  theology — exegetical,  doctrinal, 
ethical,  historical,  and  practical — has  a history  of  its  own. 

The  history  of  doctrines  or  dogmas  is  here  the  most  impor- 
tant, and  is  therefore  frequently  treated  by  itself.  Its  object  is 
to  show  how  the  mind  of  the  church  has  gradually  apprehended 
and  unfolded  the  divine  truths  of  revelation,  how  the  teachings 
of  scripture  have  been  formulated  and  shaped  into  dogmas,  and 
grown  into  creeds  and  confessions  of  faith,  or  systems  of  doc- 
trine stamped  with  public  authority.  This  growth  of  the 
church  in  the  knowledge  of  the  infallible  word  of  God  is  a 
constant  struggle  against  error,  misbelief,  and  unbelief;  and 
the  history  of  heresies  is  an  essential  part  of  the  history  of 
doctrines. 

Every  important  dogma  now  professed  by  the  Christian 
church  is  the  result  of  a severe  conflict  with  error.  The  doc- 
trine of  the  holy  Trinity,  for  instance,  was  believed  from  the 
beginning,  but  it  required,  in  addition  to  the  preparatory  labors 
of  the  ante-Nicene  age,  fifty  years  of  controversy,  in  which  the 
strongest  intellects  were  absorbed,  until  it  was  brought  to  the 
clear  expression  of  the  Niceno-Constantinopolitan  Creed.  The 
phristological  conflict  was  equally  long  and  intense,  until  it 
^as  brought  to  a settlement  by  the  council  of  Chalcedon.  The 


§ 3.  SOURCES  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


11 


Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century  was  a continual  war- 
fare with  popery.  The  doctrinal  symbols  of  the  various 
churches,  from  the  Apostles’  Creed  down  to  the  confessions  of 
Dort  and  Westminster,  and  more  recent  standards,  embody  the 
results  of  the  theological  battles  of  the  militant  church. 

The  various  departments  of  church  history  have  not  a merely 
external  and  mechanical,  but  an  organic  relation  to  each  other, 
and  form  one  living  whole,  and  this  relation  the  historian  must 
show.  Each  period  also  is  entitled  to  a peculiar  arrangement, 
according  to  its  character.  The  number,  order,  and  extent  of 
the  different  divisions  must  be  determined  by  their  actual  im- 
portance at  a given  time. 

§ 3.  Sources  of  Church  History . 

The  sources  of  church  history,  the  data  on  which  we  rely  for 
our  knowledge,  are  partly  divine,  partly  human.  For  the  his- 
tory of  the  kingdom  of  God  from  the  creation  to  the  close  of 
the  apostolic  age,  we  have  the  inspired  writings  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments.  But  after  the  death  of  the  apostles  we  have 
only  human  authorities,  which  of  course  cannot  claim  to  be  in- 
fallible. These  human  sources  are  partly  written,  partly  un- 
written. 

I.  The  written  sources  include : 

(a)  Official  documents  of  ecclesiastical  and  civil  authorities : 
acts  of  councils  and  synods,  confessions  of  faith,  liturgies, 
church  laws,  and  the  official  letters  of  popes,  patriarchs,  bishops, 
and  representative  bodies. 

(b)  Private  writings  of  personal  actors  in  the  history : the 
works  of  the  church  fathers,  heretics,  and  heathen  authors,  for 
the  first  six  centuries ; of  the  missionaries,  scholastic  and  mys- 
tic divines,  for  the  middle  age ; and  of  the  reformers  and  their 
opponents,  for  the  sixteenth  century.  These  documents  are  the 
richest  mines  for  the  historian.  They  give  history  in  its  birth 
and  actual  movement.  But  they  must  be  carefnlly  sifted  and 
weighed  ; especially  the  controversial  writings,  where  fact  is 


12 


§ 3.  SOURCES  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


generally  more  or  less  adulterated  with  party  spirit,  heretical 
and  orthodox. 

(c)  Accounts  of  chroniclers  and  historians,  whether  friends  or 
enemies,  who  were  eye-witnesses  of  what  they  relate.  The 
value  of  these  depends,  of  course,  on  the  capacity  and  credi- 
bility of  the  authors,  to  be  determined  by  careful  criticism. 
Subsequent  historians  can  be  counted  among  the  direct  or  im- 
mediate sources  only  so  far  as  they  have  drawn  from  reliable 
and  contemporary  documents,  which  have  either  been  wholly 
or  partially  lost,  like  many  of  Eusebius’  authorities  for  the 
period  before  Constantine,  or  are  inaccessible  to  historians  gen- 
erally, as  are  the  papal  regesta  and  other  documents  of  the 
Vatican  library. 

(d)  Inscriptions,  especially  those  on  tombs  and  catacombs, 
revealing  the  faith  and  hope  of  Christians  in  times  of  persecu- 
tion. Among  the  ruins  of  Egypt  and  Babylonia  whole  libraries 
have  been  disentombed  and  deciphered,  containing  mythologi- 
cal and  religious  records,  royal  proclamations,  historical,  astro- 
nomical, and  poetical  compositions,  revealing  an  extinct  civi- 
lization and  shedding  light  on  some  parts  of  Old  Testament 

II.  The  unwritten  sources  are  far  less  numerous:  church 
edifices,  works  of  sculpture  and  painting,  and  other  monuments, 
religious  customs  and  ceremonies,  very  important  for  the  his- 
tory of  worship  and  ecclesiastical  art,  and  significant  of  the 
spirit  of  their  age.1 

The  works  of  art  are  symbolical  embodiments  of  the  various 
types  of  Christianity.  The  plain  symbols  and  crude  sculptures 
of  the  catacombs  correspond  to  the  period  of  persecution ; the 
basilicas  to  the  Nicene  age ; the  Byzantine  churches  to  the 
genius  of  the  Byzantine  state-churchism  ; the  Gothic  cathedrals 
to  the  Bomano-Germanic  Catholicism  of  the  middle  ages ; the 
renaissance  style  to  the  revival  of  letters. 

To  come  down  to  more  recent  times,  the  spirit  of  Bomanism 


1 Comp.  F.  Piper : Einleitung  in  die  monumentale  Theologie.  Gotha,  1867 


§ 4.  PERIODS  OP  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


13 


ran  be  best  appreciated  amidst  the  dead  and  living  monuments 
of  Rome,  Italy,  and  Spain.  Lutheranism  must  be  studied  in 
Wittenberg,  Northern  Germany,  and  Scandinavia;  Calvinism 
in  Geneva,  France,  Holland,  and  Scotland;  Anglicanism  at 
Oxford,  Cambridge,  and  London ; Presbyterianism  in  Scotland 
and  the  United  States;  Congregationalism  in  England  and 
New  England.  For  in  the  mother  countries  of  these  denomi- 
nations we  generally  find  not  only  the  largest  printed  and 
manuscript  sources,  but  also  the  architectural,  sculptural,  sepul- 
chral, and  other  monumental  remains,  the  natural  associations, 
oral  traditions,  and  living  representatives  of  the  past,  who, 
however  they  may  have  departed  from  the  faith  of  their  an- 
cestors, still  exhibit  their  national  genius,  social  condition, 
habits,  and  customs — often  in  a far  more  instructive  manner 
than  ponderous  printed  volumes. 


§ 4.  Periods  of  Church  History. 

The  purely  chronological  or  annalistic  method,  though  pur- 
sued by  the  learned  Baronius  and  his  continuators,  is  now  gen- 
erally abandoned.  It  breaks  the  natural  flow  of  events,  sepa- 
rates things  which  belong  together,  and  degrades  history  to  a 
mere  chronicle. 

The  centurial  plan,  which  prevailed  from  Flacius  to  Mos- 
heim,  is  an  improvement.  It  allows  a much  better  view  of  the 
progress  and  connection  of  things.  But  it  still  imposes  on  the 
history  a forced  and  mechanical  arrangement ; for  the  salient 
points  or  epochs  very  seldom  coincide  with  the  limits  of  our 
centuries.  The  rise  of  Constantine,  for  example,  together  with 
the  union  of  church  and  state,  dates  from  the  year  311 ; that  of 
the  absolute  papacy,  in  Hildebrand,  from  1049 ; the  Reforma- 
tion from  1517 ; the  peace  of  Westphalia  took  place  in  1648 ; 
the  landing  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  of  New  England  in  1620  ; 
the  American  emancipation  in  1776 ; the  French  revolution  in 
1789;  the  revival  of  religious  life  in  Germany  began  in  1817. 

The  true  division  must  grow  out  of  the  actual  course  of  the 


14 


§ 4.  PERIODS  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY 


history  itself,  and  present  the  different  phases  of  its  develop 
nient  or  stages  of  its  life.  These  we  call  periods  or  ages.  The 
beginning  of  a new  period  is  called  an  epoch,  or  a stopping  and 
starting  point. 

In  regard  to  the  number  and  length  of  periods  there  is, 
indeed,  no  unanimity ; the  less,  on  account  of  the  various  de< 
nominational  differences  establishing  different  points  of  view, 
especially  since  the  sixteenth  century.  The  Reformation,  for 
instance,  has  less  importance  for  the  Roman  church  than  for 
the  Protestant,  and  almost  none  for  the  Greek ; and  while  the 
edict  of  Nantes  forms  a resting-place  in  the  history  of  French 
Protestantism,  and  the  treaty  of  Westphalia  in  that  of  German, 
neither  of  these  events  had  as  much  to  do  with  English  Prop 
estantism  as  the  accession  of  Elizabeth,  the  rise  of  Cromwell, 
the  restoration  of  the  Stuarts,  and  the  revolution  of  1688. 

But,  in  spite  of  all  confusion  and  difficulty  in  regard  to 
details,  it  is  generally  agreed  to  divide  the  history  of  Chris* 
tianity  into  three  principal  parts — ancient,  mediaeval,  and  mod- 
ern; though  there  is  not  a like  agreement  as  to  the  dividing 
epochs,  or  points  of  departure  and  points  of  termination. 

I.  The  history  of  Ancient  Christianity,  from  the  birth  of 
Christ  to  Gregory  the  Great,  a.d.  1-590. 

This  is  the  age  of  the  Graeco-Latin  church,  or  of  the  Chris- 
tian Fathers.  Its  field  is  the  countries  around  the  Mediterra- 
nean— Western  Asia,  Northern  Africa,  and  Southern  Europe — 
just  the  theatre. of  the  old  Roman  empire  and  of  classic  heathen- 
dom. This  age  lays  the  foundation,  in  doctrine,  government, 
and  worship,  for  all  the  subsequent  history.  It  is  the  common 
progenitor  of  all  the  various  confessions. 

The  Life  of  Christ  and  the  Apostolic  Church  are  by  far  the 
most  important  sections,  and  require  separate  treatment.  They 
form  the  divine-human  groundwork  of  the  church,  and  inspire, 
regulate,  and  correct  all  subsequent  periods. 

Then,  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  the  accession 
of  Constantine,  the  first  Christian  emperor,  marks  a decisive 
turn  ; Christianity  rising  from  a persecuted  sect  to  the  prevail- 


§ 4.  PERIODS  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


15 


ing  religion  of  the  Graeco-Roman  empire.  In  the  history  of 
doctrines,  the  first  oeumenical  council  of  Nicaea,  falling  in  the 
midst  of  Constantine’s  reign,  a.d.  325,  has  the  prominence  of 
an  epoch. 

Here,  then,  are  three  periods  within  the  first  or  patristic  era, 
which  we  may  severally  designate  as  the  period  of  the  Apostles, 
the  period  of  the  Martyrs,  and  the  period  of  the  Christian 
Emperors  and  Patriarchs. 

II.  Mediaeval  Christianity,  from  Gregory  I to  the  Refor- 
mation. a.d.  590-1517. 

The  middle  age  is  variously  reckoned  — from  Constantine, 
306  or  311;  from  the  fall  of  the  West  Roman  empire,  476; 
from  Gregory  the  Great,  590  ; from  Charlemagne,  800.  But 
it  is  very  generally  regarded  as  closing  at  the  beginning  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  and  more  precisely,  at  the  outbreak  of  the 
Reformation  in  1517.  Gregory  the  Great  seems  to  us  to  form 
the  most  proper  ecclesiastical  point  of  division.  With  him,  the 
author  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  mission,  the  last  of  the  church 
fathers,  and  the  first  of  the  proper  popes,  begins  in  earnest, 
and  with  decisive  success,  the  conversion  of  the  barbarian 
tribes,  and,  at  the  same  time,  the  development  of  the  absolute 
papacy,  and  the  alienation  of  the  eastern  and  western  churches. 

This  suggests  the  distinctive  character  of  the  middle  age : the 
transition  of  the  church  from  Asia  and  Africa  to  Middle  and 
Western  Europe,  from  the  Graeco-Roman  nationality  to  that  of 
the  Germanic,  Celtic,  and  Slavonic  races,  and  from  the  culture 
of  the  ancient  classic  world  to  the  modern  civilization.  The 
great  work  of  the  church  then  was  the  conversion  and  educa- 
tion of  the  heathen  barbarians,  who  conquered  and  demolished 
the  Roman  empire,  indeed,  but  were  themselves  conquered  and 
transformed  by  its  Christianity.  This  work  was  performed 
mainly  by  the  Latin  church,  under  a firm  hierarchical  constitu- 
tion, culminating  in  the  bishop  of  Rome.  The  Greek  church, 
though  she  made  some  conquests  among  the  Slavic  tribes  of 
Eastern  Europe,  particularly  in  the  Russian  empire,  since  grown 
so  important,  was  in  turn  sorely  pressed  and  reduced  by  Mo- 


16 


§ 4.  PERIODS  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


hammedanism  in  Asia  and  Africa,  the  very  seat  of  primitive 
Christianity,  and  at  last  in  Constantinople  itself ; and  in  doc- 
trine, worship,  and  organization,  she  stopped  at  the  position  of 
the  ceumenical  councils  and  the  patriarchal  constitution  of  the 
fifth  century. 

In  the  middle  age  the  development  of  the  hierarchy  occupies 
the  foreground,  so  that  it  may  be  called  the  church  of  the 
Popes,  as  distinct  from  the  ancient  church  of  the  Fathers,  and 
the  modern  church  of  the  Reformers. 

In  the  growth  and  decay  of  the  Roman  hierarchy  three  popes 
stand  out  as  representatives  of  as  many  epochs : Gregory  I.,  or 
the  Great  (590),  marks  the  rise  of  absolute  papacy ; Gregory 
VII.,  or  Hildebrand  (1049),  its  summit;  and  Boniface  VIII. 
(1294),  its  decline.  We  thus  have  again  three  periods  in  medi- 
aeval church  history.  We  may  briefly  distinguish  them  as  the 
Missionary,  the  Papal,  and  the  pre-  or  ante-Reformatory 1 agec 
of  Catholicism. 

III.  Modern  Christianity,  from  the  Reformation  of  the  six- 
teenth century  to  the  present  time.  a.d.  1517-1880. 

Modern  history  moves  chiefly  among  the  nations  of  Europe, 
and  from  the  seventeenth  century  finds  a vast  new  theatre  in 
North  America.  Western  Christendom  now  splits  into  two 
hostile  parts — one  remaining  on  the  old  path,  the  other  striking 
out  a new  one ; while  the  eastern  church  withdraws  still  further 
from  the  stage  of  history,  and  presents  a scene  of  almost  undis- 
turbed stagnation,  except  in  modern  Russia  and  Greece.  Mod- 
ern church  history  is  the  age  of  Protestantism  in  conflict  with 
Romanism,  of  religious  liberty  and  independence  in  conflict 
with  the  principle  of  authority  and  tutelage,  of  individual  and 
personal  Christianity  against  an  objective  and  traditional  church 
system. 

1 This  new  word  is  coined  after  the  analogy  of  ante-Nicene,  and  in  imitation 
of  the  German  voi'-reformatoriach.  It  is  the  age  of  the  forerunners  of  the 
Reformation,  or  reformers  before  the  Reformation,  as  Ullmann  calls  such 
men  as  Wicklyffe,  Huss,  Savonarola,  Wessel,  etc.  The  term  presents  only 
one  view  of  the  period  from  Boniface  VIII.  to  Luther.  But  this  is  the 
case  with  every  other  single  term  we  may  choose. 


§ 4.  PERIODS  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


17 


Here  again  three  different  periods  appear,  which  may  be 
denoted  briefly  by  the  terms,  Reformation,  Revolution,  and 
Revival. 

The  sixteenth  century,  next  to  the  apostolic  age  the  most 
fruitful  and  interesting  period  of  church  history,  is  the  century 
of  the  evangelical  renovation  of  the  Church,  and  the  papal 
counter-reform.  It  is  the  cradle  of  all  Protestant  denomina- 
tions and  sects,  and  of  modern  Romanism. 

The  seventeenth  century  is  the  period  of  scholastic  ortho- 
doxy, polemic  confessionalism,  and  comparative  stagnation. 
The  reformatory  motion  ceases  on  the  continent,  but  goes  on  in 
the  mighty  Puritanic  struggle  in  England,  and  extends  even 
into  the  primitive  forests  of  the  American  colonies.  The  seven- 
teenth century  is  the  most  fruitful  in  the  church  history  of 
England,  and  gave  rise  to  the  various  nonconformist  or  dissent- 
ing denominations  which  were  transplanted  to  North  America, 
and  have  outgrown  some  of  the  older  historic  churches.  Then 
comes,  in  the  eighteenth  century,  the  Pietistic  and  Methodistic 
revival  of  practical  religion  in  opposition  to  dead  orthodoxy 
and  stiff  formalism.  In  the  Roman  church  Jesuitism  prevails, 
but  opposed  by  the  half -evangelical  Jansenism,  and  the  quasi- 
liberal Gallicanism. 

In  the  second  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  begins  the  vast 
overturning  of  traditional  ideas  and  institutions,  leading  to 
revolution  in  state,  and  infidelity  in  church,  especially  in  Roman 
Catholic  France  and  Protestant  Germany.  Deism  in  England, 
atheism  in  France,  rationalism  in  Germany,  represent  the  vari- 
ous degrees  of  the  great  modern  apostasy  from  the  orthodox 
creeds. 

The  nineteenth  century  presents,  in  part,  the  further  devel- 
opment of  these  negative  and  destructive  tendencies,  but  with 
it  also  the  revival  of  Christian  faith  and  church  life,  and  the 
beginnings  of  a new  creation  by  the  everlasting  gospel.  The 
revival  may  be  dated  from  the  third  centenary  of  the  Refor- 
mation, in  1817. 

In  the  same  period  North  America,  English  and  Protestant 


18 


§ 4.  PERIODS  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


in  its  prevailing  character,  but  presenting  an  asylum  for  all 
the  nations,  churches,  and  sects  of  the  old  world,  with  a peace- 
ful separation  of  the  temporal  and  the  spiritual  power,  comes 
upon  the  stage  like  a young  giant  full  of  vigor  and  promise. 
Thus  we  have,  in  all,  nine  periods  of  church  history,  as  follows : 

First  Period  : 

The  Life  of  Christ,  and  the  Apostolic  church. 

From  the  Incarnation  to  the  death  of  St.  John.  a.d. 
1-100. 


Second  Period  : 

Christianity  under  persecution  in  the  Koman  empire. 

From  the  death  of  St.  John  to  Constantine,  the  first  Chris- 
tian emperor,  a.d.  100-311. 

Third  Period  : 

Christianity  in  union  with  the  Graeco-Roman  empire,  and 
amidst  the  storms  of  the  great  migration  of  nations. 

From  Constantine  the  Great  to  Pope  Gregory  I.  a.d. 
311-590. 

Fourth  Period: 

Christianity  planted  among  the  Teutonic,  Celtic,  and  Sla- 
vonic nations. 

From  Gregory  I.  to  Hildebrand,  or  Gregory  VII.  a.d. 
590-1049. 

Fifth  Period  : 

The  Church  under  the  papal  hierarchy,  and  the  scholastic 
theology. 

From  Gregory  VII.  to  Boniface  VIII.  a.d.  1049-1294. 

Sixth  Period: 

The  decay  of  mediaeval  Catholicism,  and  the  preparatory 
movements  for  the  Reformation. 

From  Boniface  VIII.  to  Luther.  a.d.  1294-1517. 


§ 4.  PERIODS  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


19 


Seventh  Period  : 

Tlie  evangelical  Reformation,  and  the  Roman  Catholic  Re- 
action. 

From  Luther  to  the  Treaty  of  Westphalia,  a.d.  1517-1648. 
Eighth  Period  : 

The  age  of  polemio  orthodoxy  and  exclusive  confessional- 
ism,  with  reactionary  and  progressive  movements. 

From  the  Treaty  of  Westphalia  to  the  French  Revolution. 
a.d.  1648-1790. 

J7inth  Period  : 

The  spread  of  infidelity,  and  the  revival  of  Christianity  in 
Europe  and  America,  with  missionary  efforts  encircling 
the  globe. 

From  the  French  Revolution  to  the  present  time.  a.d. 
1790-1880. 

Christianity  has  thus  passed  through  many  stages  of  its 
earthly  life,  and  yet  has  hardly  reached  the  period  of  full  man- 
hood in  Christ  Jesus.  During  this  long  succession  of  centuries 
it  has  outlived  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  dissolution  of 
the  Roman  empire,  fierce  persecutions  from  without,  and  hereti- 
cal corruptions  from  within,  the  barbarian  invasion,  the  confu- 
sion of  the  dark  ages,  the  papal  tyranny,  the  shock  of  infidelity, 
the  ravages  of  revolution,  the  attacks  of  enemies  and  the  errors 
of  friends,  the  rise  and  fall  of  proud  kingdoms,  empires,  and 
republics,  philosophical  systems,  and  social  organizations  with- 
out number.  And,  behold,  it  still  lives,  and  lives  in  greater 
strength  and  wider  extent  than  ever ; controlling  the  progress 
of  civilization,  and  the  destinies  of  the  world ; marching  over 
the  ruins  of  human  wisdom  and  folly,  ever  forward  and  on- 
ward ; spreading  silently  its  heavenly  blessings  from  generation 
to  generation,  and  from  country  to  country,  to  the  ends  of  the 
earth.  It  can  never  die ; it  will  never  see  the  decrepitude  of 
old  age ; but,  like  its  divine  founder,  it  will  live  in  the  unfading 
freshness  of  self-renewing  youth  and  the  unbroken  vigor  of 


20 


§ 5.  USES  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


manhood  to  the  end  of  time,  and  will  outlive  time  itself.  Sin- 
gle denominations  and  sects,  human  forms  of  doctrine,  govern- 
ment, and  worship,  after  having  served  their  purpose,  may  dis- 
appear and  go  the  way  of  all  flesh ; but  the  Church  Universal 
of  Christ,  in  her  divine  life  and  substance,  is  too  strong  for  the 
gates  of  hell.  She  will  only  exchange  her  earthly  garments 
for  the  festal  dress  of  the  Lamb’s  Bride,  and  rise  from  the  state 
of  humiliation  to  the  state  of  exaltation  and  glory.  Then  at 
the  coming  of  Christ  she  will  reap  the  final  harvest  of  history, 
and  as  the  church  triumphant  in  heaven  celebrate  and  enjoy 
the  eternal  sabbath  of  holiness  and  peace.  This  will  be  the 
endless  end  of  history,  as  it  was  foreshadowed  already  at  the 
beginning  of  its  course  in  the  holy  rest  of  God  after  the  com- 
pletion of  his  work  of  creation. 


§ 5.  Uses  of  Chur  eh  History . 

Church  history  is  the  most  extensive,  and,  including  the 
sacred  history  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  the  most  impor- 
tant branch  of  theology.  It  is  the  backbone  of  theology  on 
which  it  rests,  and  the  storehouse  from  which  it  derives  its 
supplies.  It  is  the  best  commentary  of  Christianity  itself, 
under  all  its  aspects  and  in  all  its  bearings.  The  fulness  of  the 
stream  is  the  glory  of  the  fountain  from  which  it  flows. 

Church  history  has,  in  the  first  place,  a general  interest  for 
every  cultivated  mind,  as  showing  the  moral  and  religious 
development  of  our  race,  and  the  gradual  execution  of  the 
divine  plan  of  redemption. 

It  has  special  value  for  the  theologian  and  minister  of  the 
gospel,  as  the  key  to  the  present  condition  of  Christendom  and 
the  guide  to  successful  labor  in  her  cause.  The  present  is  the 
fruit  of  the  past,  and  the  germ  of  the  future.  No  work  can 
stand  unless  it  grow  out  of  the  real  wants  of  the  age  and  strike 
firm  root  in  the  soil  of  history.  No  one  who  tramples  on  the 
rights  of  a past  generation  can  claim  the  regard  of  its  posterity. 
Church  history  is  no  mere  curiosity  shop.  Its  facts  are  not  dry 


§ 5.  USES  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY 


21 


bones,  but  embody  living  realities,  the  general  principles  and 
laws  for  our  own  guidance  and  action.  Who  studies  church 
history  studies  Christianity  itself  in  all  its  phases,  and  human 
nature  under  the  influence  of  Christianity  as  it  now  is,  and  will 
be  to  the  end  of  time. 

Finally,  the  history  of  the  church  has  practical  value  for 
every  Christian,  as  a storehouse  of  warning  and  encouragement, 
of  consolation  and  counsel.  It  is  the  philosophy  of  facts,  Chris- 
tianity in  living  examples.  If  history  in  general  be,  as  Cicero 
describes  it,  “ testis  temporum , lux  veritatis , et  magistra  vitce ,”  or, 
as  Diodorus  calls  it,  “ the  handmaid  of  providence,  the  priestess 
of  truth,  and  the  mother  of  wisdom,”  the  history  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  is  all  these  in  the  highest  degree.  Next  to  the 
holy  scriptures,  which  are  themselves  a history  and  depository 
of  divine  revelation,  there  is  no  stronger  proof  of  the  continual 
presence  of  Christ  with  his  people,  no  more  thorough  vindica- 
tion of  Christianity,  no  richer  source  of  spiritual  wisdom  and 
experience,  no  deeper  incentive  to  virtue  and  piety,  than  the 
history  of  Christ’s  kingdom.  Every  age  has  a message  from 
God  to  man,  which  it  is  of  the  greatest  importance  for  man  to 
understand. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  describes,  in  stirring  eloquence, 
the  cloud  of  witnesses  from  the  Old  dispensation  for  the  en- 
couragement of  the  Christians.  Why  should  not  the  greater 
cloud  of  apostles,  evangelists,  martyrs,  confessors,  fathers,  re- 
formers, and  saints  of  every  age  and  tongue,  since  the  com- 
ing of  Christ,  be  held  up  for  the  same  purpose  ? They  were 
the  heroes  of  Christian  faith  and  love,  the  living  epistles  of 
Christ,  the  salt  of  the  earth,  the  benefactors  and  glory  of 
our  race ; and  it  is  impossible  rightly  to  study  their  thoughts 
and  deeds,  their  lives  and  deaths,  without  being  elevated,  edi- 
fied, comforted,  and  encouraged  to  follow  their  holy  example, 
that  we  at  last,  by  the  grace  of  God,  be  received  into  their 
fellowship,  to  spend  with  them  a blessed  eternity  in  the  praise 
and  enjoyment  of  the  same  God  and  Saviour. 


22 


§ 0.  DUTY  OF  THE  HISTORIAN. 


§ 6.  Duty  of  the  Historian. 

The  first  duty  of  the  historian,  which  comprehends  all  others 
is  fidelity  and  justice.  lie  must  reproduce  the  history  itself, 
making  it  live  again  in  his  representation.  His  highest  and 
only  aim  should  be,  like  a witness,  to  tell  the  truth,  the  whole 
truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  and,  like  a judge,  to  do  full 
justice  to  every  person  and  event  which  comes  under  his 
review. 

To  be  thus  faithful  and  just  he  needs  a threefold  qualifica- 
tion— scientific,  artistic,  and  religious. 

1.  He  must  master  the  sources.  For  this  purpose  he  must 
be  acquainted  with  such  auxiliary  sciences  as  ecclesiastical  phi- 
lology (especially  the  Greek  and  Latin  languages,  in  which 
most  of  the  earliest  documents  are  written),  secular  history, 
geography,  and  chronology.  Then,  in  making  use  of  the 
sources,  he  must  thoroughly  and  impartially  examine  their  gen- 
uineness and  integrity,  and  the  credibility  and  capacity  of  the 
witnesses.  Thus  only  can  he  duly  separate  fact  from  fiction, 
truth  from  error. 

The  number  of  sources  for  general  history  is  so  large  and 
increasing  so  rapidly,  that  it  is,  of  course,  impossible  to  read 
and  digest  them  all  in  a short  lifetime.  Every  historian  rests 
on  the  shoulders  of  his  predecessors.  He  must  take  some 
things  on  trust  even  after  the  most  conscientious  search,  and 
avail  himself  of  the  invaluable  aid  of  documentary  collections 
and  digests,  ample  indexes,  and  exhaustive  monographs,  where 
he  cannot  examine  all  the  primary  sources  in  detail.  Only  he 
should  always  carefully  indicate  his  authorities  and  verify  facts, 
dates,  and  quotations.  A want  of  accuracy  is  fatal  to  the  repu- 
tation of  an  historical  work. 

2.  Then  comes  the  composition.  This  is  an  art.  It  must  not 
simply  recount  events,  but  reproduce  the  development  of  the 
church  in  living  process.  History  is  not  a heap  of  skeletons, 
but  an  organism  filled  and  ruled  by  a reasonable  soul. 


§ 6.  DUTY  OF  THE  HISTORIAN. 


23 


One  of  the  greatest  difficulties  here  lies  in  arranging  the 
material.  The  best  method  is  to  combine  judiciously  the  chro- 
nological and  topical  principles  of  division ; presenting  at  once 
the  succession  of  events  and  the  several  parallel  (and,  indeed, 
interwoven)  departments  of  the  history  in  due  proportion. 
Accordingly,  we  first  divide  the  whole  history  into  periods,  not 
arbitrary,  but  determined  by  the  actual  course  of  events ; and 
then  we  present  each  of  these  periods  in  as  many  parallel  sec- 
tions or  chapters  as  the  material  itself  requires.  As  to  the 
number  of  the  periods  and  chapters,  and  as  to  the  arrangement 
of  the  chapters,  there  are  indeed  conflicting  opinions,  and  in 
the  application  of  our  principle,  as  in  our  whole  representation, 
we  can  only  make  approaches  to  perfection.  But  the  principle 
itself  is,  nevertheless,  the  only  true  one. 

The  ancient  classical  historians,  and  most  of  the  English  and 
French,  generally  present  their  subject  in  one  homogeneous 
composition  of  successive  books  or  chapters,  without  rubrical 
division.  This  method  might  seem  to  bring  out  better  the 
jiving  unity  and  variety  of  the  history  at  every  point.  Yet  it 
really  does  not.  Language,  unlike  the  pencil  and  the  chisel, 
can  exhibit  only  the  succession  in  time,  not  the  local  concomi- 
tance. And  then  this  method,  rigidly  pursued,  never  gives  a 
complete  view  of  any  one  subject,  of  doctrine,  worship,  or 
practical  life.  It  constantly  mixes  the  various  topics,  breaking 
off  from  one  to  bring  up  another,  even  by  the  most  sudden 
transitions,  till  the  alternation  is  exhausted.  The  German 
method  of  periodical  and  rubrical  arrangement  has  great  prac- 
tical advantages  for  the  student,  in  bringing  to  view  the  order 
of  subjects  as  well  as  the  order  of  time.  But  it  should  not  be 
made  a uniform  and  monotonous  mechanism,  as  is  done  in  the 
Magdeburg  Centuries  and  many  subsequent  works.  For,  while 
history  has  its  order,  both  of  subject  and  of  time,  it  is  yet,  like 
all  life,  full  of  variety.  The  period  of  the  Reformation  requires 
a very  different  arrangement  from  the  middle  age  ; and  in 
modern  history  the  rubrical  division  must  be  combined  with 
and  made  subject  to  a division  by  confessions  and  countries,  as 


24 


§ 6.  DUTY  OF  THE  HISTORIAN. 


the  Roman  Catholic,  Lutheran,  Reformed  churches  in  Ger- 
many, France,  England,  and  America. 

The  historian  should  aim  then  to  reproduce  both  the  unity 
and  the  variety  of  history,  presenting  the  different  topics  in 
their  separate  completeness,  without  overlooking  their  organic 
connection.  The  scheme  must  not  be  arbitrarily  made,  and 
then  pedantically  applied,  as  a Procrustean  framework,  to  the 
history;  but  it  must  be  deduced  from  the  history  itself,  and 
varied  as  the  facts  require. 

Another  difficulty  even  greater  than  the  arrangement  of  the 
material  consists  in  the  combination  of  brevity  and  fulness. 
A general  church  history  should  give  a complete  view  of  the 
progress  of  Christ’s  kingdom  in  all  its  departments.  But  the 
material  is  so  vast  and  constantly  increasing,  that  the  utmost 
condensation  should  be  studied  by  a judicious  selection  of  the 
salient  points,  which  really  make  up  the  main  body  of  history. 
There  is  no  use  in  writing  books  unless  they  are  read.  But 
who  has  time  in  this  busy  age  to  weary  through  the  forty 
folios  of  Baronius  and  his  continuators,  or  the  thirteen  folios  of 
Flacius,  or  the  forty-five  octavos  of  Schroeckh  ? The  student 
of  ecclesiastical  history,  it  is  true,  wants  not  miniature  pictures 
only  (as  in  Ilase’s  admirable  compend),  but  full-length  por- 
traits. Yet  much  space  may  be  gained  by  omitting  the  pro- 
cesses and  unessential  details,  which  may  be  left  to  monographs 
and  special  treatises.  Brevity  is  a virtue  in  the  historian,  unless 
it  makes  him  obscure  and  enigmatic.1 

1 The  German  poet,  Friedrich  Riickert,  thus  admirably  enjoins  the  duty  of 
condensation : 

“ Wie  die  Welt  Iduft  immer  weiter, 

Wird  stets  die  Oeschichte  breiter  ; 

Und  un8  wird  je  mehr  je  lunger 
Nothig  rin  Zusammendr anger  : 

Nicht  der  a, us  dem  Schutt  der  Zriten 
Wuhle  mehr  Erbarmlichkeiten, 

Sondern  der  den  Plunder  sichte 
Und  zum  Bau  die  Steine  schichte  ; 


§ 6.  DUTY  OF  TIIE  HISTORIAN. 


25 


The  historian,  moreover,  must  make  his  work  readable  and 
interesting,  without  violating  truth.  Some  parts  of  history  are 
dull  and  wearisome ; but,  upon  the  whole,  the  truth  of  history 
is  “ stranger  than  fiction.”  It  is  God’s  own  epos.  It  needs  no 
embellishment.  It  speaks  for  itself  if  told  with  earnestness, 
vivacity,  and  freshness.  Unfortunately,  church  historians,  with 
very  few  exceptions,  are  behind  the  great  secular  historians  in 
point  of  style,  and  represent  the  past  as  a dead  corpse  rather 
than  as  a living  and  working  power  of  abiding  interest.  Hence 
church  histories  are  so  little  read  outside  of  professional  circles. 

3.  Both  scientific  research  and  artistic  representation  must 
be  guided  by  a sound  moral  and  religious,  that  is,  a truly  Chris- 
tian spirit.  The  secular  historian  should  be  filled  with  univer- 
sal human  sympathy,  the  church  historian  with  universal 
Christian  sympathy.  The  motto  of  the  former  is:  “ Homo 
sum , nihil  humani  a me  alienum  jputo  ” / the  motto  of  the  lat- 
ter : “ Christianus  sum , nihil  Christiani  a me  alienum  jpuio” 
The  historian  must  first  lay  aside  all  prejudice  and  party  zeal, 
and  proceed  in  the  pure  love  of  truth.  Not  that  he  must  be- 
come a tabula  rasa.  No  man  is  able,  or  should  attempt,  to 
cast  off  the  educational  influences  which  have  made  him  what 
he  is.  But  the  historian  of  the  church  of  Christ  must  in  every 
thing  be  as  true  as  possible  to  the  objective  fact,  “ sine  ira  et 
studio” / do  justice  to  every  person  and  event;  and  stand  in 
the  centre  of  Christianity,  whence  he  may  see  all  points  in  the 

Nicht  das  Einzle  unterdruckend , 

Noth  damit  willkuhrlich  schmuckend , 

Sondern  in  des  Einzlen  Hulls 
Legend  aflgemeine  Fulle; 

Her  gelesen  Alles  habe , 

Und  besitze  Hichtergabey 
Klar  zu  schildern  mir  das  Wesen, 

Her  ich  nicht  ein  Wort  gelesen . 

Sagt  mir  nichts  von  Resultatenf 
Henn  die  will  ich  sdber  ziehen. 

Lasst  Begebenlidten , Thateny 
Helden}  rasch  voruberziehen .” 


26 


§ 6.  DUTY  OF  THE  HISTORIAN. 


circumference,  all  individual  persons  and  events,  all  confessions* 
denominations,  and  sects,  in  their  true  relations  to  each  other 
and  to  the  glorious  whole.  The  famous  threefold  test  of  catho- 
lic truth — universality  of  time  (semper),  place  (ubique),  and 
number  (< ab  omnibus) — in  its  literal  sense,  is  indeed  untrue  and 
inapplicable.  Nevertheless,  there  is  a common  Christianity  in 
the  Church,  as  well  as  a common  humanity  in  the  world,  which 
no  Christian  can  disregard  with  impunity.  Christ  is  the  divine 
harmony  of  all  the  discordant  human  creeds  and  sects.  It  is 
the  duty  and  the  privilege  of  the  historian  to  trace  the  image 
of  Christ  in  the  various  physiognomies  of  his  disciples,  and  to 
act  as  a mediator  between  the  different  sections  of  his  king- 
dom. 

Then  he  must  be  in  thorough  sympathy  with  his  subject,  and 
enthusiastically  devoted  thereto.  As  no  one  can  interpret  a 
poet  without  poetic  feeling  and  taste,  or  a philosopher  without 
speculative  talent,  so  no  one  can  rightly  comprehend  and  ex- 
hibit the  history  of  Christianity  without  a Christian  spirit. 
An  unbeliever  could  produce  only  a repulsive  caricature,  or  at 
best  a lifeless  statue.  The  higher  the  historian  stands  on  Chris- 
tian ground,  the  larger  is  his  horizon,  and  the  more  full  and 
clear  his  view  of  single  regions  below,  and  of  their  mutual 
bearings.  Even  error  can  be  fairly  seen  only  from  the  position 
of  truth.  “ Verum  est  index  sui  et  falsi .”  Christianity  is  the 
absolute  truth,  which,  like  the  sun,  both  reveals  itself  and  en- 
lightens all  that  is  dark.  Church  history,  like  the  Bible,  is  its 
own  best  interpreter. 

So  far  as  the  historian  combines  these  three  qualifications,  he 
fulfils  his  office.  In  this  life  we  can,  of  course,  only  distantly 
approach  perfection  in  this  or  in  any  other  branch  of  study. 
Absolute  success  would  require  infallibility ; and  this  is  denied 
to  mortal  man.  It  is  the  exclusive  privilege  of  the  Divine 
mind  to  see  the  end  from  the  beginning,  and  to  view  events 
from  all  sides  and  in  all  their  bearings ; while  the  human  mind 
can  only  take  up  things  consecutively  and  view  them  partially 
or  in  fragments. 


§ 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  niSTORY. 


27 


The  full  solution  of  the  mysteries  of  history  is  reserved  for 
that  heavenly  state,  when  we  shall  see  no  longer  through  a 
glass  darkly,  but  face  to  face,  and  shall  survey  the  developments 
of  time  from  the  heights  of  eternity.  What  St.  Augustine  so 
aptly  says  of  the  mutual  relation  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment, “ Novum  Testamentum  in  Vetere  latet , Vetus  in  Novo 
jpatet ,”  may  be  applied  also  to  the  relation  of  this  world  and 
the  world  to  come.  The  history  of  the  church  militant  is 
but  a type  and  a prophecy  of  the  triumphant  kingdom  of  God 
in  heaven — a prophecy  which  will  be  perfectly  understood  only 
in  the  light  of  its  fulfilment. 

§ 7.  Literature  of  Church  History . 

Staudlin  : Geschichte  u.  Literatur  der  K.  Geschichte.  Harm.  1827. 

J.  G.  Dowling  : An  Introduction  to  the  Critical  Study  of  Eccles.  History. 
London,  1838.  Quoted  p.  1.  The  work  is  chiefly  an  account  of  the 
ecclesiastical  historians,  pp.  1-212. 

F.  C.  Baur  : Die  Epochen  der  kirchlichen  Geschichtschreibung.  Tub.  1852. 
Philip  Schaff  : Introduction  to  History  of  the  Apost . Church  (N.  York, 

1853),  pp.  51-134. 

Engelhardt  : Uebersicht  der  kir cheng eschichtlichen  Literatur  vom  Jahre 
1825-1850.  In  Niedner’s  “Zeitschrift  fur  historische  Theologie,” 
1851. 

G.  Uhlhorn  : Die  kirchenhist.  Arbeiten  von  1851-1860.  In  Niedner’s 

“ Zeitschrift  fur  histor.  Theologie,”  for  1866,  Gotha,  pp.  3-160.  The 
same  : Die  dltei'e  Kirchengesch.  in  ihren  neuei'en  Darstellungen.  In 
“ Jahrbiicher  fiir  deutsche  Theol.”  Yol.  EE.  648  sqq. 

Brieger’s  “Zeitschrift  f iir  Kirchengeschichte ” (begun  in  1877  and  pub- 
lished in  Gotha)  contains  bibliographical  articles  of  Ad.  Harnack, 
Moller,  and  others,  on  the  latest  literature. 

Ch.  K.  Adams  : A Manual  of  Historical  Literature.  N.  York,  3d  ed.  1888. 

Like  every  other  science  and  art,  church  historiography  has 
a history  of  development  toward  its  true  perfection.  This 
history  exhibits  not  only  a continual  growth  of  material,  but 
also  a gradual,  though  sometimes  long  interrupted,  improvement 
of  method,  from  the  mere  collection  of  names  and  dates  in 
a Christian  chronicle,  to  critical  research  and  discrimination, 
pragmatic  reference  to  causes  and  motives,  scientific  command 


28 


§ 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


of  material,  philosophical  generalization,  and  artistic  reproduc- 
tion of  the  actual  history  itself.  In  this  progress  also  are 
marked  the  various  confessional  and  denominational  phases  of 
Christianity,  giving  different  points  of  view,  and  consequently 
different  conceptions  and  representations  of  the  several  periods 
and  divisions  of  Christendom  ; so  that  the  development  of  the 
Church  itself  is  mirrored  in  the  development  of  church  histori- 
ography. 

We  can  here  do  no  more  than  mention  the  leading  works 
which  mark  the  successive  epochs  in  the  growth  of  our  science. 

I.  The  Apostolic  Church. 

The  first  works  on  church  history  are  the  canonical  Gospels 
of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John,  the  inspired  biographical 
memoirs  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  the  theanthropic  head  of  the 
Church  universal. 

These  are  followed  by  Luke’s  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  which 
describes  the  planting  of  Christianity  among  Jews  and  Gentiles 
from  Jerusalem  to  Rome,  by  the  labors  of  the  apostles,  espe- 
cially Peter  and  Paul. 

II.  The  Greek  Church  historians. 

The  first  post-apostolic  works  on  church  history,  as  indeed  all 
branches  of  theological  literature,  take  their  rise  in  the  Greek 
Church. 

Eusebius,  bishop  of  Caesarea,  in  Palestine,  and  contemporary 
with  Constantine  the  Great,  composed  a church  history  in  ten 
books  ( €KK\rj(Tia(TTLKrj  IcTopla,  from  the  incarnation  of  the 
Logos  to  the  year  324),  by  which  he  has  won  the  title  of  the 
Father  of  church  history,  or  the  Christian  Herodotus.  Though 
by  no  means  very  critical  and  discerning,  and  far  inferior  in 
literary  talent  and  execution  to  the  works  of  the  great  classical 
historians,  this  ante-Nicene  church  history  is  invaluable  for  its 
learning,  moderation,  and  love  of  truth ; for  its  use  of  sources 
since  totally  or  partially  lost ; and  for  its  interesting  position  of 
personal  observation  between  the  last  persecutions  of  the  church 
and  her  establishment  in  the  Byzantine  empire. 


§ 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


29 


Eusebius  was  followed  in  similar  spirit  and  on  tlie  same  plan 
by  Socrates,  Sozomen,  and  Tueodoret  in  the  fiftli  century,  and 
Tiieodorus  and  Evagrius  in  the  sixth,  each  taking  up  the 
thread  of  the  narrative  where  his  predecessor  had  dropped  it, 
and  covering  in  part  the  same  ground,  from  Constantine  the 
Great  till  toward  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century.1 2 

Of  the  later  Greek  historians,  from  the  seventh  century  to 
the  fifteenth,  the  “ Scriptores  Byzantini,”  as  they  are  called, 
Hicephorus  Callisti  (son  of  Callistus,  about  a.d.  1333)  deserves 
special  regard.  His  Ecclesiastical  History  was  written  with  the 
use  of  the  large  library  of  the  church  of  St.  Sophia  in  Constan- 
tinople, and  dedicated  to  the  emperor  Andronicus  Palseologus 
(d.  1327).  It  extends  in  eighteen  books  (each  of  which  begins 
with  a letter  of  his  name)  from  the  birth  of  Christ  to  the  death 
of  Phocas,  a.d.  610,  and  gives  in  the  preface  a summary  of  five 
books  more,  which  would  have  brought  it  down  to  911.  He 
was  an  industrious  and  eloquent,  but  uncritical  and  superstitious 
writer.3 

III.  Latin  Church  historians  of  the  middle  ages. 

The  Latin  Church,  before  the  Beformation,  was,  in  church 
history,  as  in  all  other  theological  studies,  at  first  wholly  de- 
pendent on  the  Greek,  and  long  content  with  mere  translations 
and  extracts  from  Eusebius  and  his  continuators. 

The  most  popular  of  these  was  the  Ilistoria  Trijxwtita , com- 
posed by  Cassiodorus,  prime  minister  of  Tlieodoric,  and  after- 
wards abbot  of  a convent  in  Calabria  (d.  about  a.d.  562).  It  is 
a compilation  from  the  histories  of  Socrates,  Sozomen,  and 

1 These  Greek  historians  have  been  best  edited  by  Henri  de  Valois  (Vale- 
sius),  in  Greek  and  Latin  with  notes,  in  3 folios,  Paris,  1659-73  ; also  Am- 
sterd.,  1695,  and,  with  additional  notes  by  W.  Reading,  Cambridge,  1720. 
Eusebius  has  been  often  separately  published  in  several  languages. 

2 NiKrjcpSpov  KaWiarov  tov  s.av&oirm'iXov  ’ EKK\i)(ria<TTiKrjs  *I< Troptas  vf]» 

Edited  by  the  Jesuit,  Fronton  le  Due  (Fronto-Ducaeus),  Par.  1630,  2 fol. 
This  is  the  only  Greek  edition  from  the  only  extant  MS.,  which  belonged  to 
the  King  of  Hungary,  then  came  into  the  possession  of  the  Turks,  and  last 
into  the  imperial  library  of  Vienna.  But  a Latin  version  by  John  Lang  was 
published  at  Basle  as  early  as  1561. 


30 


§ 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Theodoret,  abridging  and  harmonizing  them,  and  supplied — 
together  with  the  translation  of  Eusebius  by  Rufinus — the 
West  for  several  centuries  with  its  knowledge  of  the  fortunes 
of  the  ancient  church. 

The  middle  age  produced  no  general  church  history  of  conse- 
quence, but  a host  of  chronicles,  and  histories  of  particular 
nations,  monastic  orders,  eminent  popes,  bishops,  missionaries, 
saints,  etc.  Though  rarely  worth  much  as  compositions,  these 
are  yet  of  great  value  as  material,  after  a careful  sifting  of 
truth  from  legendary  fiction. 

The  principal  mediaeval  historians  are  Gregory  of  Tours 
(d.  595),  who  wrote  a church  history  of  the  Franks  ; the  Ven- 
erable Bede  (d.  735),  the  father  of  English  church  history  ; 
Paulus  Diaconus  (d.  799),  the  historian  of  the  Lombards ; 
Adam  of  Bremen,  the  chief  authority  for  Scandinavian  church 
history  from  a.d.  788-1072  ; Haimo  (or  Haymo,  Aimo,  a monk 
of  Fulda,  afterwards  bishop  of  Halberstadt,  d.  853),  who  de- 
scribed in  ten  books,  mostly  from  Rufinus,  the  history  of  the 
first  four  centuries  ( Historian  Sacrce  Epitome)  ; Anastasius 
(about  872),  the  author  in  part  of  the  Liber  Pontificalis , i.  e., 
biographies  of  the  Popes  till  Stephen  VI.  (who  died  891) ; 
Bartholomews  of  Lucca  (about  1312),  who  composed  a gen- 
eral church  history  from  Christ  to  a.d.  1312  ; St.  Antoninus 
(Antonio  Pierozzi),  archbishop  of  Florence  (d.  1459),  the  author 
of  the  largest  mediaeval  work  on  secular  and  sacred  history 
(. Summa  Historialis ),  from  the  creation  to  a.d.  1457. 

Historical  criticism  began  with  the  revival  of  letters,  and 
revealed  itself  first  in  the  doubts  of  Laurentius  Valla  (d.  1457) 
and  Nicolaus  of  Cusa  (d.  1464)  concerning  the  genuineness  of 
the  donation  of  Constantine,  the  Isidorian  Decretals,  and  other 
spurious  documents,  which  are  now  as  universally  rejected  as 
they  were  once  universally  accepted. 

IV.  Roman  Catholic  historians. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  was  roused  by  the  shock  of  the 
Reformation,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  to  great  activity  in  this 


§ 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


31 


and  other  departments  of  theology,  and  produced  some  works 
of  immense  learning  and  antiquarian  research,  but  generally 
characterized  rather  by  zeal  for  the  papacy,  and  against  Protes- 
tantism, than  by  the  purely  historical  spirit.  Her  best  his- 
torians are  either  Italians,  and  ultramontane  in  spirit,  or 
Frenchmen,  mostly  on  the  side  of  the  more  liberal  but  less 
consistent  Gallicanism. 

(a)  Italians : 

First  stands  the  Cardinal  Caesar  Baronius  (d.  1607),  with  his 
AnnaZes  Ecclesiastici  (Bom.  1588  sqq.),  in  12  folio  volumes,  on 
which  he  spent  thirty  years  of  unwearied  study.  They  come 
down  only  to  the  year  1198,  but  are  continued  by  Baynaldi 
(to  1565),  Laderchi  (to  1571),  and  Theiner  (to  1584). 1 

This  truly  colossal  and  monumental  work  is  even  to  this  day 
an  invaluable  storehouse  of  information  from  the  Vatican  libra- 
ry and  other  archives,  and  will  always  be  consulted  by  profes- 
sional scholars.  It  is  written  in  dry,  ever  broken,  unreadable 
style,  and  contains  many  spurious  documents.  It  stands  wholly 
on  the  ground  of  absolute  papacy,  and  is  designed  as  a positive 
refutation  of  the  Magdeburg  Centuries,  though  it  does  not 
condescend  directly  to  notice  them.  It  gave  immense  aid  and 
comfort  to  the  cause  of  Bomanism,  and  was  often  epitomized 
and  popularized  in  several  languages.  But  it  was  also  severely 
criticized,  and  in  part  refuted,  not  only  by  such  Protestants 
as  Casaubon,  Spanheim,  and  Samuel  Basnage,  but  by  Boman 
Catholic  scholars  also,  especially  two  French  Franciscans,  An- 
toine and  Francis  Pagi,  who  corrected  the  chronology. 


1 We  omit  the  inferior  continuations  of  the  Polish  Dominican,  Abr.  Bzo- 
vius,  from  1198  to  1565,  in  8 vols.,  and  of  Henr.  Spond6,  bishop  of  Pamiers, 
from  1197  to  1647,  2 vols.  The  best  of  the  older  editions,  including  the  con- 
tinuation of  Raynaldi  (but  not  of  Laderchi)  and  the  learned  criticisms  of  Pagi 
and  his  nephew,  was  arranged  by  Archbishop  Mansi,  in  38  folios,  Lucca, 
1738-’ 57.  A hundred  years  later,  a German  scholar  in  Rome,  Augustin 

Theiner,  prefect  of  the  Vatican  Archives,  resumed  the  continuation  in  3 
vols.,  embracing  the  pontificate  of  Gregory  XIII.  (a.d.  1572-’84),  Rome  and 
Paris,  1856,  3 vols.  fol.,  and  hoped  to  bring  the  history  down  to  the  pontifi- 


32 


§ 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Far  less  known  and  used  than  the  Annals  of  Baronius  is  the 
Historia  Ecclesiastica  of  Caspar  Sacharelli,  which  comes 
down  to  a.d.  1185,  and  was  published  in  Borne,  1771-1796,  in 
25  quarto  volumes. 

Invaluable  contributions  to  historical  collections  and  special 
researches  have  been  made  by  other  Italian  scholars,  as  Mura- 
tori,  Zaccagni,  Zaccaria,  Mansi,  Gallandi,  Paolo  Sarpi, 
Pallavicini  (the  last  two  on  the  Council  of  Trent),  the  three 
Assemani,  and  Angelo  Mai. 

(b)  French  Catholic  historians. 

Natalis  (Noel)  Alexander,  Professor  and  Provincial  of  the 
Dominican  order  (d.  1724),  wrote  his  Historia  Ecclesiastica 
Yeteris  et  Nova  Testamenti  to  the  year  1600  (Paris,  1676,  2d 
ed.  1699  sqq.  8 vols.  fol.)  in  the  spirit  of  Gallicanism,  with 
great  learning,  but  in  dry  scholastic  style.  Innocent  XI.  put 
it  in  the  Index  (1684).  This  gave  rise  to  the  corrected  edi- 
tions. 

The  abbot  Claude  Fleur y (d.  1723),  in  his  Ilistoire  eccle- 
siastique  (Par.  1691-1720,  in  20  vols.  quarto,  down  to  a.d. 
1414,  continued  by  Claude  Fabre,  a very  decided  Gallican,  to 
a.d.  1595),  furnished  a much  more  popular  work,  commended 
by  mildness  of  spirit  and  fluency  of  style,  and  as  useful  for 
edification  as  for  instruction.  It  is  a minute  and,  upon  the 
whole,  accurate  narrative  of  the  course  of  events  as  they  oc- 
curred, but  without  system  and  philosophical  generalization, 
and  hence  tedious  and  wearisome.  When  Fleury  was  asked 
why  he  unnecessarily  darkened  his  pages  with  so  many  discred- 
itable facts,  he  properly  replied  that  the  survival  and  progress 
of  Christianity,  notwithstanding  the  vices  and  crimes  of  its 

cate  of  Pius  VII.,  A.D.  1800,  in  12  folios;  but  he  interrupted  the  continua- 
tion, and  began,  in  1864,  a new  edition  of  the  whole  work  (including  Ray- 
naldi  and  Laderchi),  which  is  to  be  completed  in  45  or  50  volumes,  at  Bar-le- 
Duc,  France.  Theiner  was  first  a liberal  Catholic,  then  an  Ultra montanist, 
last  an  Old  Catholic  (in  correspondence  with  Dollinger),  excluded  from  the 
Vatican  (1870),  but  pardoned  by  the  pope,  and  died  suddenly,  1874.  His 
eider  brother,  Johann  Anton,  became  a Protestant. 


§ 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY.  33 

professors  and  preachers,  was  the  best  proof  of  its  divine 
origin.1 

Jacques  B£nigne  Bossuet,  the  distinguished  bishop  of  Meaux 
(d.  1704),  an  advocate  of  Romanism  on  the  one  hand  against 
Protestantism,  but  of  Gallicanism  on  the  other  against  Ultra- 
montanism,  wrote  with  brilliant  eloquence,  and  in  the  spirit  of 
the  Catholic  church,  a universal  history,  in  bold  outlines  for 
popular  effect.3  This  was  continued  in  the  German  language 
by  the  Protestant  Cramer,  with  less  elegance  but  more  thor- 
oughness, and  with  special  reference  to  the  doctrine  history  of 
the  middle  age. 

Sebastien  le  Nain  de  Tillemont  (d.  1698),  a French  noble- 
man and  priest,  without  office  and  devoted  exclusively  to  study 
and  prayer — a pupil  and  friend  of  the  Jansenists  and  in  partial 
sympathy  with  Gallicanism — composed  a most  learned  and 
useful  history  of  the  first  six  centuries  (till  513),  in  a series  of 
minute  biographies,  with  great  skill  and  conscientiousness, 
almost  entirely  in  the  words  of  the  original  authorities,  from 
which  he  carefully  distinguishes  his  own  additions.  It  is,  as 
far  as  it  goes,  the  most  valuable  church  history  produced  by 
Roman  Catholic  industry  and  learning.3 

Contemporaneously  with  Tillemont,  the  Gallican,  L.  Ellies 
Dupin  (d.  1719),  furnished  a biographical  and  bibliographical 
church  history  down  to  the  seventeenth  century.4  Remi  Ceil- 

1 A portion  of  Fleury’s  History , from  the  second  oecumenical  Council  to  the 
end  of  the  fourth  century  (a.d.  381-400),  was  published  in  English  at  Oxford, 
1842,  in  three  volumes,  on  the  basis  of  Herbert’s  translation  (London,  1728), 
carefully  revised  by  John  H.  Newman,  who  was  at  that  time  the  theological 
leader  of  the  Oxford  Tractarian  movement,  and  subsequently  (1879)  became 
a cardinal  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 

2 Discours  sur  P histoire  uniter selle  depuis  le  commencement  du  vnonde  jusqu'd 
P empire  de  Charlemagne.  Paris,  1681,  and  other  editions. 

3 Merrwires  pour  servir  d P histoire  ecclesiastique  des  six  premiers  stecles,  justi- 
fies par  les  citations  des  auteurs  oiiginaux.  Paris,  1693-1712,  16  vols.  quarto. 
Reprinted  at  Venice,  1732  sqq.  His  Histoire  des  empereurs , Paris,  1690-1738, 
in  6 vols.,  gives  the  secular  history  down  to  emperor  Anastasius. 

4 Under  the  title  : Nouvelle  Bibliotheque  des  auteurs  ecclesiastiques , conte - 
nant  Vhistoire  de  leur  vie , le  catalogue , la  critique  et  la  chronologic  de  leurs 
outrages.  Paris  and  Amsterdam,  1693-1715,  19  vols.  ; 9th  ed.,  Par.,  1698  sqq., 


34  § 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 

lier  (d.  1761)  followed  with  a similar  work,  which  has  the 
advantage  of  greater  completeness  and  accuracy.1 

The  French  Benedictines  of  the  congregation  of  St.  Maur, 
in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  century,  did  immense  ser- 
vice to  historical  theology  by  the  best  critical  editions  of  the 
fathers  and  extensive  archaeological  works.  We  can  only  men- 
tion the  names  of  Mabillon,  Massuet,  Montfaucon,  D’Achery, 
Ruin  art,  Martene,  Durand.  Among  the  Jesuits,  Sirmond 
and  Petau  occupy  a prominent  place. 

The  Abbe  Rohrbacher  (Professor  of  Church  History  at 
Haney,  d.  1856)  wrote  an  extensive  Universal  History  of  the 
Church , including  that  of  the  Old  Testament,  down  to  1848. 
It  is  less  liberal  than  the  great  Galilean  writers  of  the  seven- 
teenth century,  but  shows  familiarity  with  German  literature.3 

(c)  German  Catholic  historians. 

The  pioneer  of  modern  German  Catholic  historians  of  note  is 
a poet  and  an  ex-Protestant,  Count  Leopold  von  Stolberg 
(d.  1819).  With  the  enthusiasm  of  an  honest,  noble,  and  de- 
vout, but  credulous  convert,  he  began,  in  1806,  a very  full 
Geschichte  der  Religion  Jesu  Christi , and  brought  it  down  in 
15  volumes  to  the  year  430.  It  was  continued  by  F.  Iverz 
(vols.  16-45,  to  a.d.  1192)  and  J.  H.  Brischar  (vols.  45-53,  to 
a.d.  1245). 

Tiieod.  Ivaterkamp  (d.  at  Munster,  1834)  wrote  a church 
history,  in  the  same  spirit  and  pleasing  style,  down  to  a.d. 
1153. 3 It  remained  unfinished,  like  the  work  of  Locherer 
(d.  1837),  which  extends  to  1073. 4 

Bishop  Hefele’s  History  of  the  Councils  ( Conciliengeschichte , 

with  the  continuations  of  Goujet,  Petit-Didier,  to  the  18th  cent.,  and  the 
critique  of  R.  Simon,  61  vols.  The  work  was  condemned  by  Rome  for  its 
free  criticism  of  the  fathers. 

1 Histoire  generate  des  auteurs  sacres  et  ecclmastiques.  Paris,  1729-’63,  in 
23  vols.  4to.  New  ed.  begun  1858. 

2 Histoire  universelle  de  Veglise  catholique.  Nancy  and  Paris,  1842-49  ; 3d 
ed.,  1856-’61,  in  29  vols.  oct. ; 4th  ed.  by  Chantral,  1864  sqq.  A German 
translation  by  Hulskamp,  Rump  and  others  appeared  at  Munster,  1860  sqq. 

3 Munster,  1819-34,  5 vols.  8vo.  4 Ravensburg,  1824  sqq.,  9 vols. 


§ 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


35 


1855-’86 ; revised  edition  and  continuation,  1873  sqq.)  is  a 
most  valuable  contribution  to  the  history  of  doctrine  and  disci- 
pline down  to  the  Council  of  Trent.1 

The  best  compendious  histories  from  the  pens  of  German 
Romanists  are  produced  by  Jos.  Ign.  Ritter,  Professor  in  Bonn 
and  afterward  in  Breslau  (d.  1857) ; a Joh.  Adam  Mohler,  for- 
merly Professor  in  Tubingen,  and  then  in  Munich,  the  author 
of  the  famous  Symbolik  (d.  1838) ; 3 Joh.  Alzog  (d.  1878) ; 4 II. 
Bruce  (Mayence,  2d  ed.,  1877);  F.  X.  Kraus  (Treves,  1873; 
3d  ed.,  1882)  ; Card.  Hergenrother  (Freiburg,  3d  ed.,  1886, 

3 vols.) ; F.  X.  Funk  (Tubingen,  1886  ; 2d  ed.,  1890). 

A.  F.  Gfr6rer  (d.  1861)  began  his  learned  General  Church 
History  as  a Protestant,  or  rather  as  a Rationalist  (1841-546, 

4 vols.,  till  a.d.  1056),  and  continued  it  from  Gregory  VII.  on 
as  a Romanist  (1859-’61). 

Dr.  John  Joseph  Ignatius  Dollinger  (Professor  in  Munich, 
born  1799),  the  most  learned  historian  of  the  Roman  Church  in 
the  nineteenth  century,  represents  the  opposite  course  from 
popery  to  anti-popery.  He  began,  but  never  finished,  a Hand - 
book  of  Christian  Church  History  (Landsliut,  1833,  2 vols.) 
till  a.d.  680,  and  a Manual  of  Church  History  (1836,  2d  ed., 
1843,  2 vols.)  to  the  fifteenth  century,  and  in  part  to  1517.5 

1 The  first  two  volumes  of  the  first  ed.  were  translated  by  W.  It.  Clark  and 
H.  N.  Oxenham , and  published  by  T.  & T.  Clark,  Edinburgh,  1871  and  1876. 

2 Handbuch  der  K G.  Bonn,  3d  ed.,  1846  ; 6th  ed.,  1862,  2 vols. 

3 His  Kir cheng eschichte  was  published  from  his  lectures  by  Pius  Boniface 
Gams.  Regensburg,  1867-68,  in  3 vols.  It  is  very  unequal  and  lacks  the 
author’s  own  finish.  We  have  from  Mohler  also  a monograph  on  Athanasius 
(1827),  and  a Patrologie  (covering  the  first  three  centuries,  and  published 
after  his  death,  1840). 

4 Handbuch  der  Universal- Kir  cheng  eschichte.  9 th  ed.,  Mainz,  1872,  2 vols. ; 
10th  ed.,  1882.  Alzog  aims  to  be  the  Roman  Catholic  Hase  as  to  brevity 
and  condensation.  A French  translation  from  the  5th  ed.  was  prepared  by 
Goeschler  and  Audley,  1849  (4th  ed.  by  Abbe  Sabatier,  1874) ; an  English 
translation  by  F.  J.  Pabisch  and  Thos.  Byrne,  Cincinnati,  O.,  1874  sqq., 
in  3 vols.  The  Am.  translators  censure  the  French  translators  for  the  liber- 
ties they  have  taken  with  Alzog,  but  they  have  taken  similar  liberties,  and, 
by  sundry  additions,  made  the  author  more  Romish  than  he  was. 

5 English  translation  by  Dr.  Edw.  Cox,  Lond.  1840-42,  in  4 vols.  This  com- 
bines Dollinger’s  Handbuch  and  Lehrbuch  as  far  as  they  supplement  each  other. 


36  § 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 

He  wrote  also  learned  works  against  the  Reformation  (Di* 
Reformation , 1846-,48,  in  3 vols.),  on  Hippolytus  and  Callistus , 
(1853),  on  the  preparation  for  Christianity  (Heidenthum  und 
Judenthum , 1857),  Christianity  and  the  Church  in  the  time  of 
its  Founding  (1860),  The  Church  and  the  Churches  (1862), 
Papal  Fables  of  the  Middle  Age  (1865),  The  Pope  and  the 
Council  (under  the  assumed  name  of  “ Janus,”  1869),  etc. 

During  the  Vatican  Council  in  1870  Dollinger  broke  with 
Rome,  became  the  theological  leader  of  the  Old  Catholic  seces- 
sion, and  was  excommunicated  by  the  Archbishop  of  Munich 
(his  former  pupil),  April  17, 1871,  as  being  guilty  of  “ the  crime 
of  open  and  formal  heresy.”  He  knows  too  much  of  church 
history  to  believe  in  the  infallibility  of  the  pope.  He  solemnly 
declared  (March  28, 1871)  that,  “ as  a Christian,  as  a theologian, 
as  a historian,  and  as  a citizen,”  he  could  not  accept  the  V atican 
decrees,  because  they  contradict  the  spirit  of  the  gospel  and  the 
genuine  tradition  of  the  church,  and,  if  carried  out,  must  in- 
volve church  and  state,  the  clergy  and  the  laity,  in  irreconcila- 
ble conflict.1 

V.  The  Protestant  Church  historians. 

The  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century  is  the  mother  of 
church  history  as  a science  and  art  in  the  proper  sense  of  the 
term.  It  seemed  at  first  to  break  off  from  the  past  and  to  de- 
preciate church  history,  by  going  back  directly  to  the  Bible  as 
the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  especially  to  look  most 
unfavorably  on  the  Catholic  middle  age,  as  a progressive  cor- 
ruption of  the  apostolic  doctrine  and  discipline.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  exalted  primitive  Christianity,  and  awakened  a 
new  and  enthusiastic  interest  in  all  the  documents  of  the  apos- 
tolic church,  with  an  energetic  effort  to  reproduce  its  spirit  and 
institutions.  It  really  repudiated  only  the  later  tradition  in 
favor  of  the  older,  taking  its  stand  upon  the  primitive  historical 
basis  of  Christianity.  Then  again,  in  the  course  of  controversy 
with  Rome,  Protestantism  found  it  desirable  and  necessary  to 

1 See  Schaff’s  Creeds  of  Christendom , Vol.  I.,  195  sq. ; Von  Schulte  : Bel 
JLltkatholieismus  (Giessen,  1887),  109  sqq. 


§ 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CIIURCII  HISTORY. 


37 


wrest  from  its  opponent  not  only  the  scriptural  argument,  but 
also  the  historical,  and  to  turn  it  as  far  as  possible  to  the  side  of 
the  evangelical  cause.  For  the  Protestants  could  never  deny 
that  the  true  Church  of  Christ  is  built  on  a rock,  and  has  the 
promise  of  indestructible  permanence.  Finally,  the  Reforma- 
tion, by  liberating  the  mind  from  the  yoke  of  a despotic  ecclesi- 
astical authority,  gave  an  entirely  new  impulse,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, to  free  investigation  in  every  department,  and  produced 
that  historical  criticism  which  claims  to  clear  fact  from  the 
accretions  of  fiction,  and  to  bring  out  the  truth,  the  whole 
truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  of  history.  Of  course  this 
criticism  may  run  to  the  extreme  of  rationalism  and  scepticism, 
which  oppose  the  authority  of  the  apostles  and  of  Christ  him- 
self ; as  it  actually  did  for  a time,  especially  in  Germany.  But 
the  abuse  of  free  investigation  proves  nothing  against  the  right 
use  of  it ; and  is  to  be  regarded  only  as  a temporary  aberration, 
from  which  all  sound  minds  will  return  to  a due  appreciation 
of  history,  as  a truly  rational  unfolding  of  the  plan  of  redemp- 
tion, and  a standing  witness  for  the  all-ruling  providence  of 
God,  and  the  divine  character  of  the  Christian  religion. 

(a)  German,  Swiss,  and  Dutch  historians. 

Protestant  church  historiography  has  thus  far  flourished 
most  on  German  soil.  A patient  and  painstaking  industry  and 
conscientious  love  of  truth  and  justice  qualify  German  scholars 
for  the  mining  operations  of  research  which  bring  forth  the 
raw  material  for  the  manufacturer;  while  French  and  English 
historians  know  best  how  to  utilize  and  popularize  the  material 
for  the  general  reader. 

The  following  are  the  principal  works : 

Matthias  Flacius  (d.  1575),  surnamed  Illyricus,  a zealous 
Lutheran,  and  an  unsparing  enemy  of  Papists,  Calvinists,  and 
Melancthonians,  heads  the  list  of  Protestant  historians  with  his 
great  Ecclesiastica  Historia  Novi  Testament i,  commonly  called 
Centuries  Magdeburgenses  (Basle,  1560-’74),  covering  thirteen 
centuries  of  the  Christian  era  in  as  many  folio  volumes.  He 


38 


§ 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


began  the  work  in  Magdeburg,  in  connection  with  ten  other 
scholars  of  like  spirit  and  zeal,  and  in  the  face  of  innumerable 
difficulties,  for  the  purpose  of  exposing  the  corruptions  and 
errors  of  the  papacy,  and  of  proving  the  doctrines  of  the  Lu- 
theran Reformation  orthodox  by  the  “ witnesses  of  the  truth  ” 
in  all  ages.  The  tone  is  therefore  controversial  throughout,  and 
quite  as  partial  as  that  of  the  Annals  of  Baronius  on  the  papal 
side.  The  style  is  tasteless  and  repulsive,  but  the  amount  of 
persevering  labor,  the  immense,  though  ill-digested  and  un 
wieldy  mass  of  material,  and  the  boldness  of  the  criticism,  are 
imposing  and  astonishing.  The  “Centuries”  broke  the  path 
of  free  historical  study,  and  are  the  first  general  church  history 
deserving  of  the  name.  They  introduced  also  a new  method. 
They  divide  the  material  by  centuries,  and  each  century  by  a 
uniform  Procrustean  scheme  of  not  less  than  sixteen  rubrics : 
“ de  loco  et  propagatione  ecclesiae  ; de  persecutione  et  tranquil- 
litate  ecclesiae ; de  doctrina ; de  liaeresibus ; de  ceremoniis  ; de 
politia ; de  scliismatibus ; de  conciliis ; de  vitis  episcoporum ; 
de  haereticis ; de  martyribus ; de  miraculis  et  prodigiis ; de  re- 
bus Judaicis ; de  aliis  religionibus ; de  mutationibus  politicis.” 
This  plan  destroys  all  symmetry,  and  occasions  wearisome  dif- 
fuseness and  repetition.  Yet,  in  spite  of  its  mechanical  uni- 
formity and  stiffness,  it  is  more  scientific  than  the  annalistic  or 
chronicle  method,  and,  with  material  improvements  and  con- 
siderable curtailment  of  rubrics,  it  has  been  followed  to  this  day. 

The  Swiss,  J.  H.  Hottinger  (d.  1667),  in  his  Historia  Eccle- 
siastica  JV.  Testamenti  (Zurich,  1655-’67,  9 vols.  fob),  furnished 
a Reformed  counterpart  to  the  Magdeburg  Centuries.  It  is 
less  original  and  vigorous,  but  more  sober  and  moderate.  It 
comes  down  to  the  sixteenth  century,  to  which  alone  five  vol- 
umes are  devoted. 

From  Fred.  Spanheim  of  Holland  (d.  1649)  we  have  a Sum - 
ma  Historiae  Ecdesiasticae  (Lugd.  Bat.  1689),  coming  down  to 
the  sixteenth  century.  It  is  based  on  a thorough  and  critical 
knowledge  of  the  sources,  and  serves  at  the  same  time  as  a 
refutation  of  Baronius. 


§ 7 LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


39 


A new  path  was  broken  by  Gottfried  Arnold  (d.  1714),  in 
his  Impartial  History  of  the  Church  and  Heretics  to  a.d.  1688.1 
He  is  the  historian  of  the  pietistic  and  mystic  school.  lie 
made  subjective  piety  the  test  of  the  true  faith,  and  the  perse- 
cuted sects  the  main  channel  of  true  Christianity ; while  the 
reigning  church  from  Constantine  down,  and  indeed  not  the 
Catholic  church  only,  but  the  orthodox  Lutheran  with  it,  he 
represented  as  a progressive  apostasy,  a Babylon  full  of  corrup- 
tion and  abomination.  In  this  way  he  boldly  and  effectually 
broke  down  the  walls  of  ecclesiastical  exclusiveness  and  bigotry ; 
but  at  the  same  time,  without  intending  or  suspecting  it,  he 
opened  the  way  to  a rationalistic  and  sceptical  treatment  of 
history.  While,  in  his  zeal  for  impartiality  and  personal  piety, 
he  endeavored  to  do  justice  to  all  possible  heretics  and  sectaries, 
he  did  great  injustice  to  the  supporters  of  orthodoxy  and  eccle- 
siastical order.  Arnold  was  also  the  first  to  use  the  German 
language  instead  of  the  Latin  in  learned  history  ; but  his  style 
is  tasteless  and  insipid. 

J.  L.  von  Mosheim  (Chancellor  of  the  University  at  Gottin- 
gen, d.  1755),  a moderate  and  impartial  Lutheran,  is  the  father 
of  church  historiography  as  an  art,  unless  we  prefer  to  concede 
this  merit  to  Bossuet.  In  skilful  construction,  clear,  though 
mechanical  and  monotonous  arrangement,  critical  sagacity,  prag- 
matic combination,  freedom  from  passion,  almost  bordering  on 
cool  indifferentism,  and  in  easy  elegance  of  Latin  style,  he  sur- 
passes all  his  predecessors.  Ilis  well-known  Institutiones  Ills - 
toriae  Ecclesiasticae  antiquae  et  recentioris  (Helmstadt,  1755) 
follows  the  centurial  plan  of  Flacius,  but  in  simpler  form,  and, 
as  translated  and  supplemented  by  Maclaine,  and  Murdock,  is 
still  used  extensively  as  a text-book  in  England  and  America.2 

3 Unpartheiische  Kirchen-  und  Ketzerhistorie.  Frankfurt,  1699  sqq.  4 voli 
fol. 

2 Best  edition  : Institutes  of  Ecclesiastical  History  ancient  and  modem,  by 
John  Lawrence  von  Mosiieim.  A new  and  literal  translation  from  the 
original  Latin,  with  copious  additional  Notes,  original  and  selected.  By  James 
Murdoch,  D.D.  1832;  5th  ed. , New  York.  1854,  3 vols.  Murdock  was  Pro- 
fessor of  Ecclesiastical  History  at  Andover,  Mass.  (d.  1856),  and  translated 


40 


§ 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


J.  M.  Schrockh  (d.  1808),  a pupil  of  Mosheim,  but  already 
touched  with  the  neological  spirit  which  Semler  (d.  1791)  intro- 
duced into  the  historical  theology  of  Germany,  wrote  with  un- 
wearied industry  the  largest  Protestant  church  history  after  the 
Magdeburg  Centuries.  He  very  properly  forsook  the  centurial 
plan  still  followed  by  Mosheim,  and  adopted  the  periodic.  His 
Christian  Church  History  comprises  forty-five  volumes,  and 
reaches  to  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century.  It  is  written  in 
diffuse  but  clear  and  easy  style,  with  reliable  knowledge  of 
sources,  and  in  a mild  and  candid  spirit,  and  is  still  a rich  store- 
house of  historical  matter.1 

The  very  learned  Institutiones  Historiae  Ecclesiasticae  V.  et 
N.  Testamenti  of  the  Dutch  Deformed  divine,  H.  Venema 
(d.  1787),  contain  the  history  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
Church  down  to  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century  (Lugd.  Bat. 
1777-’83,  in  seven  parts). 

H.  P.  C.  Henke  (d.  1809)  is  the  leading  representative  of  the 
rationalistic  church  historiography,  which  ignores  Christ  in 
history.  In  his  spirited  and  able  AUgemeine  Geschichte  der 
christlichen  Kirche , continued  by  Yater  (Braunschweig,  1788- 
1820,  9 vols.),  the  church  appears  not  as  the  temple  of  God  on 
earth,  but  as  a great  infirmary  and  bedlam. 

August  Neander  (Professor  of  Church  History  in  Berlin, 
d.  1850),  the  “ father  of  modern  church  history,”  a child  in 
spirit,  a giant  in  learning,  and  a saint  in  piety,  led  back  the 
study  of  history  from  the  dry  heath  of  rationalism  to  the 
fresh  fountain  of  divine  life  in  Christ,  and  made  it  a grand 
source  of  edification  as  well  as  instruction  for  readers  of  every 
creed.  His  General  History  of  the  Christian  Religion  and 

also  Miinscher’s  Dogmengeschichte.  Mosheim’s  special  history  of  the  ante- 
Nicene  period  (1733)  was  translated  from  the  Latin  by  Vidal  (1813),  and 
Murdock  (1851),  new  ed.,  N.  York,  1853,  2 vols. 

1 Christliche  Kirchengeschichte.  Leipzig,  1768-1812,  45  vols.  8vo,  including 
10  vols.  of  the  History  after  the  Reformation  (the  last  two  by  Tzschirner). 
Nobody  ever  read  Schroeckh  through  (except  the  author  and  the  proof  reader), 
and  the  very  name  is  rather  abschreckendi  but  he  is  as  valuable  for  reference 
as  Baronius,  and  far  more  impartial. 


§ 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CIIURCII  HISTORY. 


41 


Church  begins  after  the  apostolic  age  (which  he  treated  in  a 
separate  work),  and  comes  down  to  the  Council  of  Basle  in 
1430,  the  continuation  being  interrupted  by  his  death.1  It  is 
distinguished  for  thorough  and  conscientious  use  of  the  sources, 
critical  research,  ingenious  combination,  tender  love  of  truth 
and  justice,  evangelical  catholicity,  hearty  piety,  and  by  mas- 
terly analysis  of  the  doctrinal  systems  and  the  subjective  Chris- 
tian life  of  men  of  God  in  past  ages.  The  edifying  character 
is  not  introduced  from  without,  but  naturally  grows  out  of  his 
conception  of  church  history,  viewed  as  a continuous  revelation 
of  Christ’s  presence  and  power  in  humanity,  and  as  an  illustra- 
tion of  the  parable  of  the  leaven  which  gradually  pervades  and 
transforms  the  whole  lump.  The  political  and  artistic  sections, 
and  the  outward  machinery  of  history,  were  not  congenial  to 
the  humble,  guileless  simplicity  of  Meander.  His  style  is  mo- 
notonous, involved,  and  diffuse,  but  unpretending,  natural,  and 
warmed  by  a genial  glow  of  sympathy  and  enthusiasm.  It 
illustrates  his  motto : Pectus  est  quod  theologum  facit. 

Torrey’s  excellent  translation  (Rose  translated  only  the  first 
three  centuries),  published  in  Boston,  Edinburgh,  and  London, 
in  multiplied  editions,  has  given  Neander’s  immortal  work  even 
a much  larger  circulation  in  England  and  America  than  it  has 
in  Germany  itself. 

Besides  this  general  history,  Neander’s  indefatigable  industry 
produced  also  special  works  on  the  Life  of  Christ  (1837,  4th 
ed.  1845),  the  Apostolic  Age  (1832,  4th  ed.  1842,  translated  by 
J.  E.  Ryland,  Edinburgh,  1842,  and  again  by  E.  G.  Robinson, 
N.  York,  1865),  Memorials  of  Christian  Life  (1823,  3d  ed. 
1845,  3 vols.),  the  Gnostic  Heresies  (1818),  and  biographies  of 
representative  characters,  as  Julian  the  Apostate  (1812),  St. 
Bernard  (1813,  2d  ed.  1848),  St.  Chrysostom  (1822,  3d  ed. 

1 Allgemeine  Oeschichte  der  christlichen  Religion  und  Kirche.  Hamburg, 
1825-52, 11  parts;  3d  ed.  1856,  in  4 large  vols.,  with  an  excellent  introduction 
by  Dr.  TJllmann.  The  translation  of  Prof.  Joseph  Torrey  (of  Burlington,  Vt., 
d.  1867)  was  published  in  Boston  in  5 vols.,  12th  ed.,  1881,  with  a model  Index 
of  239  pages. 


42 


§ 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


1848),  and  Tertullian  (1825,  2d  ed.  1849).  His  History  of 
Christian  Doctrines  was  published  after  his  death  by  Jacobi 
(1855),  and  translated  by  J.  E.  Hyland  (Lond.,  1858). 1 

From  J.  C.  L.  Gieseler  (Professor  of  Church  History  in 
Gottingen,  d.  1854),  a profoundly  learned,  acute,  calm,  impar- 
tial, conscientious,  but  cold  and  dry  scholar,  we  have  a Text 
book  of  Church  History  from  the  birth  of  Christ  to  1854.2  He 
takes  Tillemont’s  method  of  giving  the  history  in  the  very 
words  of  the  sources;  only  he  does  not  form  the  text  from 
them,  but  throws  them  into  notes.  The  chief  excellence  of 
this  invaluable  and  indispensable  work  is  in  its  very  carefully 
selected  and  critically  elucidated  extracts  from  the  original 
authorities  down  to  the  year  1648  (as  far  as  he  edited  the  work 
himself).  The  skeleton-like  text  presents,  indeed,  the  leading 
facts  clearly  and  concisely,  but  does  not  reach  the  inward  life 
and  spiritual  marrow  of  the  church  of  Christ.  The  theological 
views  of  Gieseler  hardly  rise  above  the  jejune  rationalism  of 
W egscheider,  to  whom  he  dedicated  a portion  of  his  history ; 
and  with  all  his  attempt  at  impartiality  he  cannot  altogether 
conceal  the  negative  effect  of  a rationalistic  conception  of  Chris- 
tianity, which  acts  like  a chill  upon  the  narrative  of  its  history, 
and  substitutes  a skeleton  of  dry  bones  for  a living  organism. 

Neander  and  Gieseler  matured  their  works  in  respectful  and 
friendly  rivalry,  during  the  same  period  of  thirty  years  of  slow, 
but  solid  and  steady  growth.  The  former  is  perfectly  sub- 
jective, and  reproduces  the  original  sources  in  a continuous 

1 I have  given  a fuller  account  of  the  life  and  writings  of  Neander,  my 
beloved  teacher,  in  my  “ Kirchenfreund  ” for  1851,  pp.  20  sqq.  and  283  sqq., 
and  in  Aug.  Neander,  Erinnerungen,  Gotha,  1886  (76  pp.).  Comp,  also  Har- 
nack’s  oration  at  the  centennial  of  Neander s birth,  Berlin,  Jan  17,  1889,  and 
A.  Wiegand,  Aug.  Neander , Erfurt,  1889. 

2 Lehrbuch  der  Kirchengeschichte.  Bonn,  1824-’56  (4tli  ed.  1844  sqq.),  in  5 
volumes,  the  last  two  published  from  his  lectures  after  his  death  by  liedepen- 
ning.  Translated  into  English  first  by  Cunningham , in  Philadelphia,  1846, 
then  by  Qapidson  and  Hull , in  England,  and  last  and  best,  on  the  basis  of  the 
former,  by  Henry  B.  Smith , New  York  (Harpers),  in  5 vols.,  1857-1880.  The 
fifth  and  last  volume  of  this  edition  was  completed  after  Dr.  Smith’s  death 
(1877)  by  Prof.  Stearns  and  Miss  Mary  A.  Robinson,  with  an  introductory  notice 
by  Philip  SchafE.  Gieseler’s  Bogmengeschichte  appeared  separately  in  1855. 


§ 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CIIURCII  HISTORY. 


43 


warm  and  sympathetic  composition,  which  reflects  at  the  same 
time  the  author’s  own  mind  and  heart;  the  latter  is  purely 
objective,  and  speaks  with  the  indifference  of  an  outside  spec- 
tator, through  the  ipsissima  verba  of  the  same  sources,  arranged 
as  notes,  and  strung  together  simply  by  a slender  thread  of 
narrative.  The  one  gives  the  history  ready-made,  and  full  of 
life  and  instruction  ; the  other  furnishes  the  material  and  leaves 
the  reader  to  animate  and  improve  it  for  himself.  With  the 
one,  the  text  is  everything;  with  the  other,  the  notes.  But 
both  admirably  complete  each  other,  and  exhibit  together  the 
ripest  fruit  of  German  scholarship  in  general  church  history  in 
the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

Ferdinand  Christian  Baur  (Prof,  of  Church  History  in 
Tubingen,  d.  1860)  must  be  named  alongside  with  Neander 
and  Gieseler  in  the  front  rank  of  German  church  historians. 
He  was  equal  to  both  in  independent  and  thorough  scholarship, 
superior  in  constructive  criticism  and  philosophical  generaliza- 
tion, but  inferior  in  well-balanced  judgment  and  solid  merit. 
He  over-estimated  theories  and  tendencies,  and  undervalued 
persons  and  facts.  He  was  an  indefatigable  investigator  and 
bold  innovator.  He  completely  revolutionized  the  history  of 
apostolic  and  post-apostolic  Christianity,  and  resolved  its  rich 
spiritual  life  of  faith  and  love  into  a purely  speculative  process 
of  conflicting  tendencies,  which  started  from  an  antagonism  of 
Petrinism  and  Paulinigm,  and  were  ultimately  reconciled  in  the 
compromise  of  ancient  Catholicism.  He  fully  brought  to  light, 
by  a keen  critical  analysis,  the  profound  intellectual  fermenta- 
tion of  the  primitive  church,  but  eliminated  from  it  the  super- 
natural and  miraculous  element ; yet  as  an  honest  and  serious 
sceptic  he  had  to  confess  at  last  a psychological  miracle  in 
the  conversion  of  St.  Paul,  and  to  bow  before  the  greater 
miracle  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  without  which  the  former 
is  an  inexplicable  enigma.  His  critical  researches  and  specula- 
tions gave  a powerful  stimulus  to  a reconsideration  and  modifi- 
cation of  the  traditional  views  on  early  Christianity. 

We  have  from  his  fertile  pen  a general  History  of  the  Chris - 


44 


§ 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


tian  Church,  in  five  volumes  (1853-1863),  three  of  which  were 
published  after  his  death  and  lack  the  originality  and  careful 
finish  of  the  first  and  second,  which  cover  the  first  six  cen- 
turies; Lectures  on  Christian  Doctrine  History  ( Dogmenge - 
schichte),  published  by  his  son  (1865-’67,  in  3 volumes),  and 
a brief  Lehrbuch  der  Dogmengeschichte,  edited  by  himself 
(1847,  2d  ed.  1858).  Even  more  valuable  are  his  monographs ; 
on  St.  Paul , for  whom  he  had  a profound  veneration,  although 
he  recognized  only  four  of  his  Epistles  as  genuine  (1845,  2d 
ed.  by  E.  Zeller,  1867,  2 vols.,  translated  into  English,  1875) ; 
on  Gnosticism , with  which  he  had  a strong  spiritual  affinity 
{Die  christliche  Gnosis,  oder  die  christliche  Heligionsphiloso- 
jphie,  1835)  ; the  history  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement 
(1838,  1 vol.),  and  of  the  Trinity  and  Incarnation  (1841-’43,  in 
3 vols.),  and  his  masterly  vindication  of  Protestantism  against 
Mohler’s  SymboliJc  (2d  ed.  1836).1 

Karl  Kudolph  Hagenbach  (Professor  of  Church  History  at 
Basel,  d.  1874)  wrote,  in  the  mild  and  impartial  spirit  of  Ne- 
ander,  with  poetic  taste  and  good  judgment,  and  in  pleasing 
popular  style,  a general  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  in 
seven  volumes  (4th  ed.  1868-’72),2 3  and  a History  of  Christian 
Doctrines,  in  two  volumes  (1841,  4th  ed.  1857).* 

Protestant  Germany  is  richer  than  any  other  country  in 
manuals  and  compends  of  church  history  for  the  use  of  stu- 
dents. We  mention  Engelhardt  (1834),  Niedner  {Geschichte 
der  christl.  Kirche , 1846,  and  Lehrbuch,  1866),  IIase  (lltli  ed. 


1 Comp.  Landerer’s  W&rte  der  Erinnerung  an  Dr.  Baur , 1860,  the  article 
“ Baur  und  die  Tiibinger  Schule,”  in  Herzog  and  Plitt,  “ Theol.  Encykl.,”  Yol. 
II.,  163-184  (2d  ed.),  and  R.  W.  Mackay  : The  Tubingen  School  and  its  Ante - 
cedents.  London,  1863.  See  also  Zeller,  Vortrdge  (1865),  pp.  267  sqq. 

7 Portions  of  Hagenbach’s  History  have  been  translated,  namely,  the  His- 
tory of  the  Church  in  the  18 th  and  19 th  Centuries  by  Dr.  John  F.  Hurst 
(President  of  Drew  Theol.  Seminary,  Madison,  N.  J.),  N.  York,  1869,  2 vols., 
and  the  History  of  the  Reformation  by  Miss  Evelina  Mooiie  (of  Newark,  N. 
J.),  Edinburgh,  1879,  2 vols.  A new  ed.  with  literature  by  Hippold,  1885  sqq. 

3 English  translation  by  C.  W.  Buch , Edinburgh,  1846,  revised  from  the 
4th  ed. , and  enlarged  from  Neander,  Gieseler,  Baur,  etc.,  by  Henry  B.  Smith , 
N.  York,  1861,  in  2 vols.  ; 6th  Germ.  ed.  by  K.  Benrath , Leipz.  1888. 


§ 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY.  45 

1886),  Guericke  (9th  ed.  1866,  3 vols.),  Lindner  (1848-,54), 
Jacobi  (1850,  unfinished),  Fricke  (1850),  Kurtz  (. Lehrbuch , 
10th  ed.  1887,  in  2 vols.,  the  larger  Handbucli , unfinished), 
IIasse  (edited  by  Kohler,  1864,  in  3 small  vols.),  Kollner 
(1864),  Ebrard  (1866,  2 vols.),  Rotiie  (lectures  edited  by  Wein- 
garten,  1875,  2 vols.),  Herzog  (1876-82,  3 vols.),  H.  Sciimed 
(1881,  2 vols.).  Niedner’s  Lehrbuch  (1866)  stands  first  for 
independent  and  thorough  scholarship,  but  is  heavy.  Hase’s 
Compend  is  unsurpassed  for  condensation,  wit,  point,  and  artis- 
tic taste,  as  a miniature  picture.1  Herzog’s  Abriss  keeps  the 
medium  between  voluminous  fulness  and  enigmatic  brevity,  and 
is  written  in  a candid  Christian  spirit.  Kurtz  is  clear,  concise, 
and  evangelical.3  A new  manual  was  begun  by  Moller,  1889. 

The  best  works  on  doctrine  history  ( Dogmengeschichte ) are  by 
Munscher,  Gieseler,  Neander,  Baur,  Hagenbach,  Thomasius, 
II.  Schmid,  Nitzsch,  and  Harnack  (1887). 

It  is  impossible  to  do  justice  here  to  the  immense  service 
which  Protestant  Germany  has  done  to  special  departments  of 
church  history.  Most  of  the  fathers,  popes,  schoolmen  and 
reformers,  arid  the  principal  doctrines  of  Christianity  have  been 
made  the  subject  of  minute  and  exhaustive  historical  treat- 
ment. We  have  already  mentioned  the  monographs  of  Nean- 
der  and  Baur,  and  fully  equal  to  them  are  such  masterly  and 
enduring  works  as  Hot  he’s  Beginnings  of  the  Christian  Church , 
Ullmann's  Reformers  before  the  Reformation , Hasse’s  Anselm 
of  Canterbury , and  Dorner’s  History  of  Christology . 

(b)  French  works. 

Dr.  Etienne  L.  Chastel  (Professor  of  Church  History  in  the 
National  Church  at  Geneva,  d.  1886)  wrote  a complete  Histoire 
du  Christianisme  (Paris,  1881-’85,  5 vols.). 

Dr.  Merle  d’Aubigne  (Professor  of  Church  History  in  the 
independent  Reformed  Seminary  at  Geneva,  d.  1872)  repro- 
duced in  elegant  and  eloquent  French  an  extensive  history  both 
of  the  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic  Reformation,  with  an  evan- 

1 In  1885  Hase  began  the  publication  of  his  Lectures  on  Ch.  Hist 3 vols. 

9 English  translation  from  the  9th  ed.  by  J.  Macpherson,  1889,  3 vola. 


46 


§ 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY, 


gelical  enthusiasm  and  a dramatic  vivacity  which  secured  it  an 
extraordinary  circulation  in  England  and  America  (far  greater 
than  on  the  Continent),  and  made  it  the  most  popular  work  on 
that  important  period.  Its  value  as  a history  is  somewhat 
diminished  by  polemical  bias  and  the  occasional  want  of  accu- 
racy. Dr.  Merle  conceived  the  idea  of  the  work  during  the 
celebration  of  the  third  centenary  of  the  German  Reformation 
in  1817,  in  the  Wartburg  at  Eisenach,  where  Luther  translated 
the  New  Testament  and  threw  his  inkstand  at  the  devil.  He 
labored  on  it  till  the  year  of  his  death.1 

Dr.  Edmund  de  Pressense  (pastor  of  a free  church  in  Paris, 
member  of  the  National  Assembly,  then  senator  of  France),  an 
able  scholar,  with  evangelical  Protestant  convictions  similar  to 
those  of  Dr.  Merle,  wrote  a Life  of  Christ  against  Renan,  and  a 
History  of  Ancient  Christianity,  both  of  which  are  translated 
into  English.2 

Ernest  Renan,  the  celebrated  Orientalist  and  member  of  the 
French  Academy,  prepared  from  the  opposite  standpoint  of  scept- 
ical criticism,  and  mixing  history  with  romance,  but  in  brilliant 
and  fascinating  style,  the  Life  of  Christ,  and  the  history  of  the 
Beginnings  of  Christianity  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century.* 

1 Histoire  de  la  Reformation  du  16  siecle.  Paris,  1835  sqq.,  4th  ed.  1861 
sqq. , 5 vols.  Histoire  de  la  Reformation  en  Europe  au  temps  de  Galvin.  Paris, 
1863  sqq.  German  translation  of  both  works,  Stuttgart  (Steinkopf),  1861 
and  1863  sqq.  English  translation  repeatedly  published  in  England  and  the 
United  States  by  the  Amer.  Tract  Society  (with  sundry  changes),  and  by 
Carter  & Brothers.  The  Carter  ed.  (N.  York,  1863-1879)  is  in  5 vols.  for  the 
Lutheran  Reformation,  and  in  8 vols.  for  the  Reformation  in  the  time  of 
Calvin.  The  last  three  vols.  of  the  second  series  were  translated  and  pub- 
lished after  the  author’s  death  by  W.  L.  Cates.  By  a singular  mistake  Dr. 
Merle  goes  in  England  and  America  by  the  name  of  D’Aubigne,  which  is 
merely  an  assumed  by-name  from  his  Huguenot  ancestors. 

2 Jesus  Christ , son  temps , sa  vie , son  oeuvre.  Paris,  1866.  Histoire  des  trois 
premiers  si&cles  de  Veglise  chr Etienne.  Paris,  1858  sqq.  German  translation  by 
Fabarius  (Leipzig,  1862-65),  English  translation  by  Annie  Harwood.  Lond. 
and  N.  York,  1870  sqq.,  4 vols.  Superseded  by  a revised  ed.  of  the  original, 
Paris,  1887  sqq. 

3 Vie  de  Jesus.  Paris,  1863,  and  in  many  editions  in  different  languages. 
This  book  created  even  a greater  sensation  than  the  Leben  Jesu  of  Strauss, 
but  is  very  superficial  and  turns  the  gospel  history  into  a novel  with  a self- 
contradictory and  impossible  hero.  It  forms  the  first  volume  of  his  Histoire 
des  origines  du  christianisme.  The  other  volumes  are : 2.  Les  Apotres , Paris, 


§ 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


47 


(c)  English  works. 

English  literature  is  rich  in  works  on  Christian  antiquity, 
English  church  history,  and  other  special  departments,  but 
poor  in  general  histories  of  Christianity. 

The  first  place  among  English  historians,  perhaps,  is  due  to 
Edward  Gibbon  (d.  1794).  In  his  monumental  History  of  the 
Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire  (finished  after  twenty 
years’  labor,  at  Lausanne,  June  27,  1787),  he  notices  throughout 
the  chief  events  in  ecclesiastical  history  from  the  introduction 
of  the  Christian  religion  to  the  times  of  the  crusades  and  the 
capture  of  Constantinople  (1453),  with  an  accurate  knowledge 
of  the  chief  sources  and  the  consummate  skill  of  a master  in 
the  art  of  composition,  with  occasional  admiration  for  heroic 
characters  like  Athanasius  and  Chrysostom,  but  with  a keener 
eye  to  the  failings  of  Christians  and  the  imperfections  of  the 
visible  church,  and  unfortunately  without  sympathy  and  under- 
standing of  the  spirit  of  Christianity  which  runs  like  a golden 
thread  even  through  the  darkest  centuries.  He  conceived  the 
idea  of  his  magnificent  work  in  papal  Rome,  among  the  ruins 
of  the  Capitol,  and  in  tracing  the  gradual  decline  and  fall  of 
imperial  Rome,  which  he  calls  “ the  greatest,  perhaps,  and  most 
awful  scene  in  the  history  of  mankind,”  he  has  involuntarily 
become  a witness  to  the  gradual  growth  and  triumph  of  the 
religion  of  the  cross,  of  which  no  historian  of  the  future  will 
ever  record  a history  of  decline  and  fall,  though  some  “ lonely 
traveller  from  New  Zealand,”  taking  his  stand  on  “ a broken 
arch  ” of  the  bridge  of  St.  Angelo,  may  sketch  the  ruins  of  St. 
Peter’s.1 

1866  ; 3.  St.  Paul , 1869;  4.  D Antechrist , 1873  ; 5.  Les  evangiles  et  la  seconde 
generation  des  chretiens,  1877 ; 6.  LiegUse  chretienne , 1879  ; Marc-Aurele  et  la 
fin  du  monde  antique , 1882.  The  work  of  twenty  years.  Renan  wrote,  he 
says,  “ without  any  other  passion  than  a very  keen  curiosity.” 

1 Cardinal  Newman,  shortly  before  his  transition  from  Oxford  Tractarian- 
ism  to  Romanism  (in  his  essay  on  Development  of  Christian  Doctrine,  1845), 
declared  “ the  infidel  Gibbon  to  be  the  chief,  perhaps  the  only  English  writer 
who  has  any  claim  to  be  considered  an  ecclesiastical  historian.”  This  is  cer- 
tainly not  true  any  longer.  Dr.  McDonald,  in  an  essay,  “ Was  Gibbon  an  in- 
fidel?” (in  the  “Bibliotheca  Sacra”  for  July,  1868,  Andover,  Mass.),  tried  to 


48  § 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 

Joseph  Milner  (Vicar  of  Hull,  d.  1797)  wrote  a History  of 
the  Church  of  Christ  for  popular  edification,  selecting  those 
portions  which  best  suited  his  standard  of  evangelical  ortho- 
doxy and  piety.  “Nothing,”  he  says  in  the  preface,  “but 
what  appears  to  me  to  belong  to  Christ’s  kingdom  shall  be 
admitted ; genuine  piety  is  the  only  thing  I intend  to  celebrate.” 
He  may  be  called  the  English  Arnold,  less  learned,  but  free 
from  polemics  and  far  more  readable  and  useful  than  the  Ger- 
man pietist.  His  work  was  corrected  and  continued  by  his 
brother,  Isaac  Milner  (d.  1820),  by  Thomas  Grantham  and 
Dr.  Stebbing' 

Dr.  W addington  (Dean  of  Durham)  prepared  three  volumes 
on  the  history  of  the  Church  before  the  Reformation  (1835) 
and  three  volumes  on  the  Continental  Reformation  (1841). 
Evangelical. 

Canon  James  C.  Robertson  of  Canterbury  (Prof,  of  Church 
History  in  King’s  College,  d.  1882)  brings  his  History  of  the 
Christian  Church  from  the  Apostolic  Age  down  to  the  Refor- 
mation (a.d.  64-1517).  The  work  was  first  published  in  four 
octavo  volumes  (1854  sqq.)  and  then  in  eight  duodecimo  vol- 
umes (Lond.  1874),  and  is  the  best,  as  it  is  the  latest,  general 
church  history  written  by  an  Episcopalian.  It  deserves  praise 
for  its  candor,  moderation,  and  careful  indication  of  authori- 
ties. 

From  Charles  Hardwick  (Archdeacon  of  Ely,  d.  1859)  we 
have  a useful  manual  of  the  Church  History  of  the  Middle  Age 
(1853,  3d  ed.  by  Prof.  W.  Stubbs , 1872),  and  another  on  the 
Reformation  (1856,  3d  ed.  by  W.  Stubbs , London,  1873).  Ilis 

vindicate  him  against  the  charge  of  infidelity.  But  Gibbon  was  undoubtedly 
a Deist  and  deeply  affected  by  the  skepticism  of  Hume  and  V oltaire.  While 
a student  at  Oxford  he  was  converted  to  Romanism  by  reading  Bossuet’s 
Variations  of  Protestantism,  and  afterwards  passed  over  to  infidelity,  with 
scarcely  a ray  of  hope  of  any  immortality  but  that  of  fame.  See  his  Auto- 
biography,  Ch.  VIII.,  and  his  letter  to  Lord  Sheffield  of  April  27,  1793,  where 
he  says  that  his  “ only  consolation  ” in  view  of  death  and  the  trials  of  life 
was  “the  presence  of  a friend.”  Best  ed.  of  Gibbon,  by  W.  Smith. 

1 London,  1794-1812  ; new  ed.  by  Grantham,  1847,  4 vols.,  1860,  and  other 
ed.  A German  translation  by  Mortimer , Gnadau,  5 vols. 


49 


§ 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CIIURCII  HISTORY. 

History  of  the  Anglican  Articles  of  Religion  (1859)  is  a valu- 
able contribution  to  English  church  history. 

Dr.  Trench,  Archbishop  of  Dublin,  has  published  his  Lec- 
tures on  Mediaeval  Church  History  (Loud.  1877),  delivered  be- 
fore the  girls  of  Queen’s  College,  London.  They  are  conceived 
in  a spirit  of  devout  cliurchly  piety  and  interspersed  with  judi- 
cious reflections. 

Philip  Smith’s  History  of  the  Christian  Church  during  the 
First  Ten  Centuries  (1879),  and  during  the  Middle  Ages  (1885), 
in  2 vols.,  is  a skilful  and  useful  manual  for  students.1 2 3 * 

The  most  popular  and  successful  modern  church  historians  in 
the  English  or  any  other  language  are  Dean  Milman  of  St. 
Paul’s,  Dean  Stanley  of  Westminster  Abbey,  and  Archdeacon 
Farrar  of  Westminster.  They  belong  to  the  broad  church 
school  of  the  Church  of  England,  are  familiar  with  Continental 
learning,  and  adorn  their  chosen  themes  with  all  the  charms  of 
elegant,  eloquent,  and  picturesque  diction.  Henry  IIart  Mil- 
man  (d.  1868)  describes,  with  the  stately  march  of  Gibbon  and 
as  a counterpart  of  his  decline  and  fall  of  Paganism,  the  rise 
and  progress  of  Ancient  and  Latin  Christianity,  with  special 
reference  to  its  bearing  on  the  progress  of  civilization.5 * *  Ar- 
thur Penrhyn  Stanley  (d.  1881)  unrolls  a picture  gallery  of 
great  men  and  events  in  the  Jewish  theocracy,  from  Abraham 
to  the  Christian  era,  and  in  the  Greek  church,  from  Constan- 
tine the  Great  to  Peter  the  Great.8  Frederic  W.  Farrar  (b. 

1 Republished  by  Harper  & Brothers,  New  York,  1885.  The  author  has 
transferred  verbatim  a large  portion  of  his  Manual  from  my  church  history, 
but  with  proper  acknowledgment.  Another  church  history  by  a writer 
nearer  home  has  made  even  larger,  but  less  honest  use  of  my  book. 

2 The  History  of  Christianity  from  the  Birth  of  Christ  to  the  Abolition  of 
Paganism  in  the  Roman  Empire.  Lond.  1840,  revised  ed.,  Loud,  and  N.  York 
(Middleton),  1866,  3 vols.  More  important  is  his  History  of  Latin  Chris- 
tianity to  the  Pontificate  of  Nicholas  V.  (a.d.  1455),  Lond.  and  N.  York,  1854 
sqq.,  in  8 vols.  Milman  wrote  also  a History  of  the  Jews , 1829  (revised  1862, 

3 vols.),  and  published  an  edition  of  Gibbon’s  Decline  and  Fall  with  useful 

annotations.  A complete  edition  of  his  historical  works  appeared,  Lond. 

1866-’67,  in  15  vols.  8vo. 

3 Lectures  on  the  History  of  the  Eastern  Church  (delivered  in  Oxford),  Lond. 

and  N.  York,  1862.  No  complete  history,  but  a series  of  picturesque  de» 


50 


7.  LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


1881)  illuminates  with  classical  and  rabbinical  learning,  and 
with  exuberant  rhetoric  the  Life  of  Christ,  and  of  the  great 
Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  and  the  Early  Days  of  Christianity.1 

(d)  American  works. 

American  literature  is  still  in  its  early  youth,  hut  rapidly 
growing  in  every  department  of  knowledge.  Prescott,  Wash- 
ington Irving,  Motley,  and  Bancroft  have  cultivated  interest- 
ing portions  of  the  history  of  Spain,  Holland,  and  the  United 
States,  and  have  taken  rank  among  the  classical  historians  in 
the  English  language. 

In  ecclesiastical  history  the  Americans  have  naturally  so  far 
been  mostly  in  the  attitude  of  learners  and  translators,  but  with 
every  prospect  of  becoming  producers.  They  have,  as  already 
noticed,  furnished  the  best  translations  of  Mosheim,  Heander, 
and  Gieseler. 

Henry  B.  Smith  (late  Professor  in  the  Union  Theol.  Semi- 
nary, Hew  York,  d.  1877)  has  prepared  the  best  Chronological 
Tables  of  Church  History,  which  present  in  parallel  columns  a 
synopsis  of  the  external  and  internal  history  of  Christianity, 
including  that  of  America,  down  to  1858,  with  lists  of  Councils, 
Popes,  Patriarchs,  Archbishops,  Bishops,  and  Moderators  of 
General  Assemblies.* 


scriptions  of  the  most  interesting  characters  and  scenes  in  the  Eastern 
church.  Lectures  on  the  History  of  the  Jewish  Church,  Lond.  and  N.  York, 
1862-’76,  in  3 vols.  An  independent  and  skilful  adaptation  of  the  views  and 
results  of  Ewald’s  Oeschichte  Israel's,  to  which  Stanley  pays  a fine  tribute  in 
the  Prefaces  to  the  first  and  third  vols.  His  Historical  Memorials  of  Canter- 
bury Cathedral  (1855,  ,5th  ed.  1869),  and  of  Westminster  Abbey  (1867,  4th  ed. 
1874),  are  important  for  English  church  history.  His  Lectures  on  the  History 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland  (1872)  have  delighted  the  moderate  and  liberal,  but 
displeased  the  orthodox  Presbyterians  of  the  land  of  Knox  and  Walter  Scott. 

1 Farrar’s  Life  of  Christ  appeared  first  in  London,  1874,  in  2 vols.,  and  has 
up  to  1879  gone  through  about  thirty  editions,  including  the  American  re- 
prints. His  Life  and  Work  of  St.  Paul , Lond.  and  N.  York,  1879,  in  2 vols. 
The  Early  Days  of  Christianity,  London  and  New  York,  1882,  2 vols.  ; and 
Lives  of  the  Fathers,  Lond.  and  N.  Y.  1889,  2 vols. 

2 History  of  the  Church  of  Christ  in  (16)  Chronological  Tables.  N.  York 
(Charles  Scribner),  1860.  Weingarten’s  Zeittafeln  zur  Kir cheng eschichte , 3d 
ed.,  1888,  are  less  complete,  but  more  convenient  in  size. 


§ 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


51 


W.  G.  T.  Siiedd  (Professor  in  the  same  institution,  b.  1820) 
wrote  from  the  standpoint  of  Calvinistic  orthodoxy  an  eminent- 
ly readable  History  of  Christian  Doctrine  (N.  York,  1863,  2 
vols.),  in  clear,  fresh,  and  vigorous  English,  dwelling  chiefly  on 
theology,  anthropology,  and  soteriology,  and  briefly  touching 
on  eschatology,  but  entirely  omitting  the  doctrine  of  the  Church 
and  the  sacraments,  with  the  connected  controversies. 

Philip  Sciiaff  is  the  author  of  a special  History  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Church , in  English  and  German  (N.  York,  1853,  etc.,  and 
Leipzig,  1854),  of  a History  of  the  Creeds  of  Christendom 
(N.  York,  4th  ed.,  1884,  3 vols.,  with  documents  original  and 
translated),  and  of  a general  History  of  the  Christian  Church 
(N.  York  and  Edinb.,  1859-67,  in  3 vols. ; also  in  German, 
Leipzig,  1867 ; rewritten  and  enlarged,  N.  Y.  and  Edinb., 
1882-’88  ; third  revision,  1889,  5 vols. ; to  be  continued). 

George  P.  Fisher  (Professor  in  New  Haven,  b.  1827)  has 
written  the  best  manual  in  the  English  language : History  of 
the  Christian  Church , with  Maps.  N.  York,  1887.  lie  has 
also  published  a History  of  the  Reformation  (1873) ; Begin- 
nings of  Christianity  (1877),  and  Outlines  of  Universal  His- 
tory (1885), — all  in  a calm,  amiable,  and  judicious  spirit,  and  a 
clear,  chaste  style. 

Contributions  to  interesting  chapters  in  the  history  of  Prot- 
estantism are  numerous.  Dr.  E.  II.  Gillett  (d.  1875)  wrote  a 
monograph  on  John  Ilus  (N.  York,  1864,  2 vols.),  a History 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
(Pliilad.  1864,  2 vols.),  and  a History  of  Natural  Theology  ( God 
in  Human  Thought , N.  York,  1874,  2 vols.);  Dr.  Abel  Ste- 
vens, a History  of  Methodism , viewed  as  the  great  religious 
revival  of  the  eighteenth  century,  down  to  the  centenary  cele- 
bration of  1839  (N.  York,  1858-’61,  3 vols.),  and  a History  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  (1864-’67, 

4 vols.);  Henry  M.  Baird,  a History  of  the  Rise  and  Progress 
of  the  Huguenots  in  France  (N.  York,  1879,  2 vols.),  and  The 
Huguenots  and  Henry  of  Navarre  (1886,  2 vols.). 

The  denominational  and  sectarian  divisions  of  American 

university  OF 


52  § 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 

Christianity  seem  to  be  unfavorable  to  the  study  and  cultivation 
of  general  church  history,  which  requires  a large-hearted  catho- 
lic spirit.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  social  and  national  in- 
termingling of  ecclesiastical  organizations  of  every  variety  of 
doctrine  and  discipline,  on  a basis  of  perfect  freedom  and 
equality  before  the  law,  widens  the  horizon,  and  facilitates 
comparison  and  appreciation  of  variety  in  unity  and  unity  in 
variety ; while  the  growth  and  prosperity  of  the  churches  on 
the  principle  of  self-support  and  self-government  encourages  a 
hopeful  view  of  the  future.  America  falls  heir  to  the  whole 
wealth  of  European  Christianity  and  civilization,  and  is  in  a 
favorable  position  to  review  and  reproduce  in  due  time  the 
entire  course  of  Christ’s  kingdom  in  the  old  world  with  the 
faith  and  freedom  of  the  new.1 

(e)  Finally,  we  must  mention  biblical  and  ecclesiastical  Ency- 
clopaedias which  contain  a large  number  of  valuable  contribu- 
tions to  church  history  from  leading  scholars  of  the  age,  viz. : 

1.  The  Bible  Dictionaries  of  Winer  (Leipzig,  1820,  3d  ed. 
1847,  2 vols.) ; Schenkel  (Leipzig,  1869-75,  5 vols.);  Riehm 
(Leipzig,  1877  sqq.,  illustrated) ; Kitto  (Edinb.,  1845,  third  re- 
vised ed.  by  W.  L.  Alexander,  1862-’65,  3 vols.);  Wm.  Smith 
(London,  1860-64,  in  3 vols.,  American  edition  much  enlarged 
and  improved  by  H.  Hackett  and  E.  Abbot,  N.  York,  1870, 
in  4 vols.) ; Ph.  Schaff  (Philadelphia,  1880,  with  maps  and 
illustrations  ; 4th  ed.,  revised,  1887). 

2.  The  Biblical  and  Historical  Dictionaries  of  Herzog  ( Real - 
Encyklopddie  f ur  Drotestantische  Theologie  und  Kirche , Gotha. 
1854  to  1868,  in  22  vols.,  new  ed.  thoroughly  revised  by 
Herzog,  Plitt  and  Hatjck,  Leipzig,  1877-88,  in  18  vols.); 
Schaff-Herzog  ( Religious  Encyclopaedia,  based  on  Herzog, 
but  condensed,  supplemented,  and  adapted  to  English  and 
American  students,  edited  by  Philip  Schaff  in  connection  with 

1 Comp,  the  author’s  Christianity  in  the  United  States  of  America  (a  report 
prepared  for  the  seventh  General  Conference  of  the  Evang.  Alliance,  held  at 
Basle,  Sept.,  1879),  printed  in  the  Proceedings  of  that  Conference,  and  his 
Church  and  State  in  the  U,  S.,  N.  York,  1888. 


§ 7.  LITERATURE  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY.  53 

Samuel  M.  Jackson  and  D.  S.  Scliaff,  N.  York  and  Edinburgh, 
revised  ed.,  1887,  in  3 vols.,  with  a supplementary  vol.  on  Living 
Divines  and  Christian  Workers,  1887);  Wetzer  and  Welte 
(Roman  Catholic  Kirchenlexicon , Freiburg  i.  Breisgau,  1847- 
1860,  in  12  vols. ; second  ed.  newly  elaborated  by  Cardinal 
Joseph  Hergenrother  and  Dr.  Franz  Kaulen,  1880  sqq., 
promised  in  10  vols.) ; Lichtenberger  ( Encyclopedic  des  sciences 
religieuses , Paris,  1877-’82,  in  13  vols.,  with  supplement) ; 
McClintock  and  Strong  ( Cyclopaedia  of  Biblical , Theological , 
and  Ecclesiastical  Literature , New  York,  1867-’81,  10  vols. 
and  two  supplementary  volumes,  1885  and  1887,  largely  illus- 
trated). The  Encyclopaedia  Britannica  (9th  ed.,  completed 
1889  in  25  vols.)  contains  also  many  elaborate  articles  on  bibli- 
cal and  ecclesiastical  topics. 

3.  For  ancient  church  history  down  to  the  age  of  Charle- 
magne: Smith  and  Ciieetham,  Dictionary  of  Christian  An - 
tiquities  (London  and  Boston,  1875,  2 vols.) ; Smith  and  Wace, 
Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography , Literature , Sects  and  Doc- 
trines during  the  first  eight  centuries  (London  and  Boston, 
1877-,87,  4 vols.).  The  articles  in  these  two  works  are  written 
mostly  by  scholars  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  are  very 
valuable  for  fulness  and  accuracy  of  information. 

Note. — The  study  of  church  history  is  reviving  in  the  Greek  Church 
•where  it  began.  Phtlabet  Bapheidos  has  issued  a compendious  church 
history  under  the  title  : yEKKXrj<Ti(icrTiKri  iaropia  ano  tov  Kvp'iov  T)pa>v  ’I rjcrov 
XpifTTov  pf'xP1  T™v  Ka q/hh  xpovmv  vi to  GnXapeTov  B ayjseidov,  dpxipctvdpL- 
tov  A.  3>.  Kal  KaSrjytjTov  rrjs  QeoXoyias  iv  t rj  (V  XoXktj  QeoXoyiKrj  SyoAi). 
Topos  7r pcoros.  ’Apxaia  ckkXtjo-  iaropla.  A.  I).  1-700.  *Ev  KeovaravTivonoXei , 
1884  (Lorentz  & Keil,  libraires  de  S.  M.  I.  le  Sultan),  380  pp.  The  sec- 
ond vol.  embraces  the  mediaeval  church  to  the  fall  of  Constantinople, 
1453,  and  has  459  pp.  The  work  is  dedicated  to  Dr.  Philotheos  Bryen- 
nios,  Metropolitan  of  Nicomedia,  the  discoverer  of  the  famous  Jerusalem 
Codex.  Nearly  all  the  literature  quoted  is  German  Protestant ; no  Eng- 
lish, very  few  Latin,  and  still  fewer  Greek  works  are  mentioned.  Another 
compend  of  Church  History  in  Greek  by  Diomedes  Kyklakqs  appeared 
at  Athens,  1881,  in  2 vols. 


FIRST  PERIOD 


THE  CHURCH  UNDER  THE  APOSTLES 

FROM  THE  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST  TO  THE  DEATH  OF  ST.  JOHN, 

A.D.  1-100 


CHAPTER  I 

PREPARATION  FOR  CHRISTIANITY  IN  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE 
JEWISH  AND  HEATHEN  WORLD. 

Literature . 

J.  L.  von  Mosheim  : Historical  Commentaries  on  the  State  of  Christianity  in 
the  first  three  centuries.  1753.  Transl.  by  Vidal  and  Murdocky  vol.  i. 
chs.  1 and  2 (pp.  9-82,  of  the  N.  York  ed.  1853). 

Neander  : Allg.  Gesch.  der  christl.  Religion  und  Kirche.  Vol.  ls£  (1842). 
Einleit.  (p.  1-116). 

J.  P.  Lange  : Das  apost.  Zeitalter.  1853,  I.  pp.  224-318. 

Schaff  : Hist,  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  pp.  137-188  (New  York  ed.). 

Lutterbeck  (R.  C.)  : Die  N.  Testamentlichen  Lehrbegriffe,  oder  Unter- 
suchungen  uber  das  Zeitalter  der  Religionswende,  die  Vorstufen  des 
Christenthums  und  die  erste  Gestaltung  desselben.  Mainz,  1852,  2 vols. 

Bollinger  (R.  C.)  : Heidenthum  und  Judenthum.  Vorhalle  zur  Geschichte 
des  Christenthums.  Regensb.  1857.  Engl,  transl.  by  N.  Darnell 
nnder  the  title  : The  Gentile  and  the  Jew  in  the  courts  of  the  Temple 
of  Christ : an  Introduction  to  the  History  of  Christianity.  Lond.  1862, 
2 vols. 

Charles  Hardwick  (d.  1859) : Christ  and  other  Masters,  London,  4th 
ed.  by  Procter , 1875. 


56 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


M.  Schneckenburger  (d.  1848) : Vorlesungen  uber  N.  Testamentliche  Zeit * 
geschichte , aus  (lessen  Nachlass  herausgegeben  von  Lbhlein , mit  Vorwor ! 
von  Hundesliagen.  Frankf.  a M.  1862. 

A.  Hausrath  : N.  Testamentliche  Zeitgescliichte.  Heidelb.  1868  sqq.,  2d 
ed.  1873-’77,  4 vols.  The  first  vol.  appeared  in  a third  ed.  1879. 
The  work  includes  the  state  of  Judaism  and  heathenism  in  the  time 
of  Christ,  the  apostolic  and  the  post-apostolic  age  to  Hadrian  (a.d. 
117).  English  translation  by  Poynting  and  Guenzer , Lond.  1878  sqq. 

E.  Schurer  : Lehrbuch  tier  N.  Testamentlichen  Zeitgescliichte . Leipz.  1874. 
Revised  and  enlarged  under  the  title : Gesch.  des  jud.  Volkes  im 
Zeitalter  Christi.  1886,  2 vols.  Engl,  translation,  Edinb.  and  N.  Y. 

H.  ScHiniiER  : Geschichte  des  romischen  Kaiserreichs  unter  der  Regierung 
des  Nero.  Berlin,  1872. 

L.  Friedlander  : Darstellungen  aus  der  Sittengeschichte  Roms  in  der  Zeit 
von  Augustus  bis  zum  Ausgang  der  Antonine.  Leipzig,  5th  ed.,  re- 
vised, 1881,  3 vols.  A standard  work. 

Geo.  P.  Fisher  (of  Yale  College,  New  Haven) : The  Beginnings  of  Chris- 
tianity. N.  York,  1877.  Chs.  II.-VII. 

Gerhard  Uhlhorn  : The  Conflict  of  Christianity  with  Heathenism.  Transl. 
by  Egbert  C.  Smyth  and  C.  J.  H.  Ropes.  N.  York,  1879.  Book  I. 
chs.  1 and  2.  The  German  original  appeared  in  a 4th  ed.,  1884. 


§ 8.  Central  Position  of  Christ  in  the  History  of  the  World. 

To  see  clearly  the  relation  of  the  Christian  religion  to  the 
preceding  history  of  mankind,  and  to  appreciate  its  vast  influ- 
ence upon  all  future  ages,  we  must  first  glance  at  the  prepara- 
tion which  existed  in  the  political,  moral,  and  religious  condi- 
tion of  the  world  for  the  advent  of  our  Saviour. 

As  religion  is  the  deepest  and  holiest  concern  of  man,  the 
entrance  of  the  Christian  religion  into  history  is  the  most  mo- 
mentous of  all  events.  It  is  the  end  of  the  old  world  and  the 
beginning  of  the  new.  It  was  a great  idea  of  Dionysius  “ the 
Little”  to  date  our  era  from  the  birth  of  our  Saviour.  Jesus 
Christ,  the  God-Man,  the  prophet,  priest,  and  king  of  mankind, 
is,  in  fact,  the  centre  and  turning-point  not  only  of  chronology, 
but  of  all  history,  and  the  key  to  all  its  mysteries.  Around 
him,  as  the  sun  of  the  moral  universe,  revolve  at  their  several 
distances,  all  nations  and  all  important  events,  in  the  religious 
life  of  the  world;  and  all  must,  directly  or  indirectly,  con- 


§ 8.  CENTRAL  POSITION  OF  CHRIST.  57 

6ciously  or  unconsciously,  contribute  to  glorify  his  name  and 
advance  his  cause.  The  history  of  mankind  before  his  birth 
must  be  viewed  as  a preparation  for  his  coming,  and  the  his- 
tory after  his  birth  as  a gradual  diffusion  of  his  spirit  and 
progress  of  his  kingdom.  “ All  things  were  created  by  him, 
and  for  him.”  He  is  “ the  desire  of  all  nations.”  He  ap- 
peared in  the  “ fulness  of  time,”  1 when  the  process  of  prepar- 
ation was  finished,  and  the  world’s  need  of  redemption  fully 
disclosed. 

This  preparation  for  Christianity  began  properly  with  the 
very  creation  of  man,  who  was  made  in  the  image  of  God,  and 
destined  for  communion  with  him  through  the  eternal  Son; 
and  with  the  promise  of  salvation  which  God  gave  to  our  first 
parents  as  a star  of  hope  to  guide  them  through  the  darkness 
of  sin  and  error.3  V ague  memories  of  a primitive  paradise  and 
subsequent  fall,  and  hopes  of  a future  redemption,  survive  even 
in  the  heathen  religions. 

With  Abraham,  about  nineteen  hundred  years  before  Christ, 
the  religious  development  of  humanity  separates  into  the  two 
independent,  and,  in  their  compass,  very  unequal  branches  of 
Judaism  and  heathenism.  These  meet  and  unite  .at  last  in 
Christ  as  the  common  Saviour,  the  fulfiller  of  the  types  and 
prophecies,  desires  and  hopes  of  the  ancient  world  ; while  at 
the  same  time  the  ungodly  elements  of  both  league  in  deadly 
hostility  against  him,  and  thus  draw  forth  the  full  revelation 
of  his  all-conquering  power  of  truth  and  love. 

As  Christianity  is  the  reconciliation  and  union  of  God  and 
man  in  and  through  Jesus  Christ,  the  God-Man,  it  must  have 
been  preceded  by  a twofold  process  of  preparation,  an  approach 
of  God  to  man,  and  an  approach  of  man  to  God.  In  Judaism 
the  preparation  is  direct  and  positive,  proceeding  from  above 
downwards,  and  ending  with  the  birth  of  the  Messiah.  In 
heathenism  it  is  indirect  and  mainly,  though  not  entirely,  nega- 
tive, proceeding  from  below  upwards,  and  ending  with  a help- 


Markl  : 15 ; Gal.  4:4. 


5 Gen.  3 : 15. 


58 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


less  cry  of  mankind  for  redemption.  There  we  have  a special 
revelation  or  self-communication  of  the  only  true  God  by  word 
and  deed,  ever  growing  clearer  and  plainer,  till  at  last  the 
divine  Logos  appears  in  human  nature,  to  raise  it  to  commu- 
nion with  himself;  here  men,  guided  indeed  by  the  general 
providence  of  God,  and  lighted  by  the  glimmer  of  the  Logos 
shining  in  the  darkness,'  yet  unaided  by  direct  revelation,  and 
left  to  “walk  in  their  own  ways,”1 2  “that  they  should  seek 
God,  if  haply  they  might  feel  after  him,  and  find  him.” 3 In 
Judaism  the  true  religion  is  prepared  for  man;  in  heathen- 
ism man  is  prepared  for  the  true  religion.  There  the  divine 
substance  is  begotten  ; here  the  human  forms  are  moulded  to 
receive  it.  The  former  is  like  the  elder  son  in  the  parable, 
who  abode  in  his  father’s  house ; the  latter  like  the  prodigal, 
who  squandered  his  portion,  yet  at  last  shuddered  before  the 
gaping  abyss  of  perdition,  and  penitently  returned  to  the  bosom 
of  his  father’s  compassionate  love.4  Heathenism  is  the  starry 
night,  full  of  darkness  and  fear,  but  of  mysterious  presage  also, 
and  of  anxious  waiting  for  the  light  of  day;  Judaism,  the 
dawn,  full  of  the  fresh  hope  and  promise  of  the  rising  sun ; 
both  lose  themselves  in  the  sunlight  of  Christianity,  and  attest 
its  claim  to  be  the  only  true  and  the  perfect  religion  for  man- 
kind. 

The  heathen  preparation  again  was  partly  intellectual  and 
literary,  partly  political  and  social.  The  former  is  represented 
by  the  Greeks,  the  latter  by  the  Homans. 

Jerusalem,  the  holy  city,  Athens,  the  city  of  culture,  and 
Home,  the  city  of  power,  may  stand  for  the  three  factors  in 
that  preparatory  history  which  ended  in  the  birth  of  Chris- 
tianity. 

This  process  of  preparation  for  redemption  in  the  history  of 
the  world,  the  groping  of  heathenism  after  the  “ unknown 
God  ” 6 and  inward  peace,  and  the  legal  struggle  and  comfort- 


1 John  1:5;  Rom.  1 : 19,  20 ; 2 : 14,  15. 

2 Acts  14 : 16.  3 Acts  17  : 26,  27. 

4 Luke  15  : 11-32.  5 Acts  17  : 23. 


§ 9.  JUDAISM. 


5 9 


ing  hope  of  Judaism,  repeat  themselves  in  every  individual 
believer ; for  man  is  made  for  Christ,  and  “ his  heart  is  restless, 
till  it  rests  in  Christ.” 1 


§ 9.  Judaism. 

Literature. 

I.  Sources. 

1.  The  Canonical  Books  of  the  O.  and  N.  Testaments. 

2.  The  Jewish  Apocrypha.  Best  edition  by  Otto  Frid.  Fritzsche:  Libri 

Apocryphi  Veteris  Testamenti  Graece.  Lips.  1871.  German  Com- 
mentary by  Fritzsche  and  Grimm , Leipz.  1851-’60  (in  the  “ Exeget. 
Handbuch  zum  A.  T.”) ; English  Com.  by  Dr.  E.  C.  Bissell , N.  York, 
1880  (vol.  xxv.  in  Schaff’s  ed.  of  Lange’s  Bible-Work). 

3.  Josephus  (a  Jewish  scholar,  priest,  and  historian,  patronized  by  Ves- 

pasian and  Titus,  b.  a.d.  37,  d.  about  103)  : Antiquitates  Judaicae 
Ap\aioXoyla  'lovbaiKr}),  in  20  books,  wpitten  first  (but  not  preserved) 
in  Aramaic,  and  then  reproduced  in  Greek,  a.d.  94,  beginning  with 
the  creation  and  coming  down  to  the  outbreak  of  the  rebellion 
against  the  Romans,  a.d.  66,  important  for  the  post-exilian  period. 
Bellum  Judaicum  (nep'i  rot)  'lovdalxov  noXtpov),  in  7 books,  written 
about  75,  from  his  own  personal  observation  (as  Jewish  general  in 
Galilee,  then  as  Roman  captive,  and  Roman  agent),  and  coming  down 
to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  a.d.  70.  Contra  Apionem,  a defence 
of  the  Jewish  nation  against  the  calumnies  of  the  grammarian  Apion. 
His  Vita  or  Autobiography  was  written  after  a.d.  100. — Editions  of 
Josephus  by  Hudson , Oxon.  1720,  2 vols.  fol.  ; Haveixamp , Amst. 
1726,  2 fol. ; Obei'thur,  Lips.  1785,  3 vols. ; Richter , Lips.  1827,  6 vols. ; 
Dindorf \ Par.  1849,  2 vols.  ; Imm.  Bekker , Lips.  1855,  6 vols.  The 
editions  of  Havercamp  and  Dindorf  are  the  best.  English  transla- 
tions by  Whiston  and  Traill , often  edited,  in  London,  New  York, 
Philadelphia.  German  translations  by  Hedio , Ott,  Cotta,  Demme. 

4.  Philo  of  Alexandria  (d.  after  a.d.  40)  represents  the  learned  and  philo- 

sophical (Platonic)  Judaism.  Best  ed.  by  Mangey , Lond.  1742,  2 
fol.,  and  Riclitei % Lips.  1828,  2 vols.  English  translation  by  C.  D. 
Yonge , London,  1854,  4 vols.  (in  Bohn’s  “Ecclesiastical  Library”). 

5.  The  Talmud  (“ttfcbfi,  i.  e.  Doctrine)  represents  the  traditional,  post- 

exilian,  and  anti-Christian  Judaism.  It  consists  of  the  Mishna  ("DT 
bevTcpaais,  Repetition  of  the  Law),  from  the  end  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, and  the  Gemara  (fcOtt3,  i.  e.  Perfect  Doctrine,  from  “ifta,  to 
bring  to  an  end).  The  latter  exists  in  two  forms,  the  Palestinian 

1 St.  Augustine,  Conf.  I.  1 : “ Fecisti  nos  ad  Te , et  inquietum  est  cor  nos- 
trum, donee  requiescat  in  Te.” 


60 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Gemara,  completed  at  Tiberias  about  a.d.  350,  and  the  Babylonian 
Gemara  of  the  sixth  century.  Best  eds.  of  the  Talmud  by  Bomb  erg, 
Yen.  1520  sqq.  12  vols.  fol.,  and  Sittenfeld , Berlin,  1862-’68,  12  vols. 
fol.  Latin  version  of  the  Mishna  by  G.  Surenhusius , Amst.  1698- 
1703,  6 vols.  fol. ; German  by  J.  J.  Babe,  Onolzbach,  1760-’63. 

6.  Monumental  Sources : of  Egypt  (see  the  works  of  Champollion, 

Young,  Rosellini,  Wilkinson,  Birch,  Marie tte,  Lepsius,  Bunsen, 
Ebers,  Brugscli,  etc.) ; of  Babylon  and  Assyria  (see  Botta,  Layard, 
George  Smith,  Sayce,  Schrader,  etc.). 

7.  Greek  and  Roman  authors  : Polybius  (d.  b.c.  125),  Diodorus  Siculus 

(contemporary  of  Cmsar),  Strabo  (d.  a.d.  24),  Tacitus  (d.  about  117), 
Suetonius  (d.  about  130),  Justinus  (d.  after  a.d.  160).  Their  accounts 
are  mostly  incidental,  and  either  simply  derived  from  Josephus,  or 
full  of  error  and  prejudice,  and  hence  of  very  little  value. 

II.  Histories. 

(a)  By  Christian  authors. 

Prideaux  (Dean  of  Norwich,  d.  1724)  : The  Old  and  New  Testament  Con - 
nected  in  the  History  of  the  Jews  and  neighboring  nations , from  the 
declension  of  the  kingdoms  of  Israel  and  Judah  to  the  time  of  Christ. 
Lond.  1715;  11th  ed.  1749,  4 vols.  (and  later  eds.).  The  same  in 
French  and  German. 

J.  J.  Hess  (d.  1828)  : Geschichte  der  Israeliten  vo>'  den  Zeiten  Jesu.  Ziir. 
1766  sqq.,  12  vols. 

Warburton  (Bishop  of  Gloucester,  d.  1779)  : The  Divine  Legation  of 
Moses  demonstrated.  5th  ed.  Lond.  1766  ; 10th  ed.  by  James  Nichols , 
Lond.  1846,  3 vols.  8vo. 

Milman  (Dean  of  St.  Paul’s,  d.  1868)  : History  of  the  Jews.  Lond.  1829, 
3 vols.  ; revised  ed.  Lond.  and  N.  York,  1865,  3 vols. 

J.  C.  K.  Hofmann  (Prof,  in  Erlangen,  d.  1878)  : Weissagung  und  Erf  ul - 
lung.  Nordl.  1841,  2 vols. 

Archibald  Alexander  (d.  at  Princeton,  1851)  : A History  of  the  Israel - 
itish  Nation.  Philadelphia,  1853.  (Popular.) 

H.  Ewald  (d.  1874) : Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel  bis  Christus.  Gott. 
1843  sqq.  3d  ed.  1864-’68,  7 vols.  A work  of  rare  genius  and  learn- 
ing, but  full  of  bold  conjectures.  Engl,  transl.  by  Russell  Martineau 
and  J.  E.  Carpenter.  Lond.  1871-’76,  5 vols.  Comp,  also  Ewald’s 
Prophets , and  Poetical  Books  of  the  0.  T. 

E.  W.  Hengstenberg  (d.  1869) : Geschichte  des  Reiches  Gottes  unter  dem 
Alton  Bunde.  Berk  1869-71,  2 vols.  (Posthumous  publication.) 
English  transl.,  Edinburgh  (T.  & T.  Clark),  1871-72,  2 vols.  (Name 
of  the  translator  not  given.) 

J.  H.  Kurtz  : Geschichte  des  Alien  Bundes.  Berlin,  1848-’55,  2 vols. 
(unfinished).  Engl,  transl.  by  Edei'sheim , Edinb.  1859,  in  3 vols. 
The  same  : Lehrbuch  der  heil.  Geschichte.  Konigsb.  6th  ed.  1853 ; 
also  in  English,  by  C.  F.  Schdffei'.  Phil.  1855. 


§ 9.  JUDAISM. 


61 


P.  Cassel:  Israel  in  der  Weltgeschichte.  Berlin,  1865  (32  pp.). 

Joseph  Langen  (R.  C.) : Das  Judent/ium  in  Paldstina  zur  Zeit  Christi. 
Freiburg  i.  B.  1866. 

G.  Weber  and  H.  Holtzmann:  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel  und  der 

Grundung  des  Christcnthums.  Leipzig,  1867,  2 vols.  (the  first  vol. 
by  Weber,  the  second  by  Holtzmann). 

H.  Holtzmann  : Die  Messiasidee  zur  Zeit  Christi , in  the  “ Jahrbiicher  fur 

Deutsche  Theologie,”  Gotha,  1867  (vol.  xii.  pp.  389-411). 

F.  Hitzig  : Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel  von  Anbeginn  bis  zur  Eroberung 
Masada's  im  J.  72  nach  Chr.  Heidelb.  1869,  2 vols. 

A.  Kuenen  (Prof,  in  Leyden)  : De  godsdienst  van  Israel  tot  den  ondergang 
van  den  joodschen  staat.  Haarlem,  1870,  2 vols.  Transl.  into  Eng- 
lish : The  Religion  of  Israel  to  the  Fall  of  the  Jewish  Statet  by  A.  H. 
May.  Lond.  (Williams  & Norgate),  1874-’75,  3 vols.  Represents 
the  advanced  rationalism  of  Holland. 

A.  P.  Stanley  (Dean  of  Westminster) : Lectures  on  the  History  of  the 
Jewish  Church.  Lond.  and  N.  York,  1863-’76, 3 vols.  Based  on  Ewald. 
W.  Wellhausen  : Geschichte  Israels.  Berlin,  1878,  3d  ed.  1886.  Transl. 

by  Black  and  Menzies : Prolegomena  to  the  History  of  Israel.  Edinb.  1885. 
E.  Schurer  : Geschichte  desjud.  Volkes  im  Zeitalter  Christi.  1886  sq.  2 vols. 
A.  Edersheim  : Prophecy  and  History  in  relation  to  the  Messiah.  Lond.  1885. 

A.  Kohler  : Lehrbuch  der  bibl.  Geschichte  des  A.  T.  Erlangen,  1875-88. 
C.  A.  Briggs  : Messianic  Prophecy.  N.  York  and  Edinb.  1886. 

Y.  H.  Stanton  : The  Jewish , and  the  Christian  Messiah.  Lond.  1886. 

B.  Stade  : Gesch.  des  Volkes  Israel.  Berlin,  1888,  2 vols.  Radical. 

E.  Renan  : Hist,  du  peuple  dy Israel.  Paris,  1887  sqq.,  3 vols.  Engl. 

translation,  London,  1888  sqq.  Radical. 

R.  Kittel  : Gesch.  der  Hebrder.  Gotha,  1888  sqq.  Moderate. 

(b)  By  Jewish  authors. 

J.  M.  Jost  : Geschichte  der  Israeliten  seit  der  Zeit  der  Maccdbder  bis  auf 
unsere  Tage.  Leipz.  1820-28,  9 vols.  By  the  same : Geschichte  des 
Judenthums  und  seiner  Secten.  1857-59,  3 vols. 

Salvador  : Histoire  de  la  domination  Romaine  en  Judee  et  de  la  ruine  de 
Jerusalem.  Par.  1847,  2 vols. 

Raphall  : Post-biblical  History  of  the  Jews  from  the  close  of  the  0.  T.  about 
the  year  420  till  the  destruction  of  the  second  Temple  in  the  year  70. 
Lond.  1856,  2 vols. 

Abraham  Geiger  (a  liberal  Rabbi  at  Frankfort  on  the  M.) : Das  Juden- 
thum  und  seine  Geschichte.  Breslau ; 2d  ed.  1865-’71,  3 vols.  With 
an  appendix  on  Strauss  and  Renan.  Comes  down  to  the  16th  cen- 
tury. English  transl.  by  Maumee  Mayer.  N.  York,  1865. 

L.  Herzfeld  : Geschichte  des  Volkes  Jizrael.  Nordhausen,  1847— ’57,  3 
vols.  The  same  work,  abridged  in  one  vol.  Leipz.  1870. 

H.  Gratz  (Prof,  in  Breslau) : Geschichte  der  Juden  von  den  altesten  Zeiten 
bis  auf  die  Gegenwart.  Leipz.  1854-’70,  11  vols.  (to  1848). 


62 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


“ Salvation  is  of  the  Jews.” 1 This  wonderful  people,  whose 
fit  symbol  is  the  burning  bush,  was  chosen  by  sovereign  grace 
to  stand  amidst  the  surrounding  idolatry  as  the  bearer  of  the 
knowledge  of  the  only  true  God,  his  holy  law,  and  cheering  prom- 
ise, and  thus  to  become  the  cradle  of  the  Messiah.  It  arose  with 
the  calling  of  Abraham,  and  the  covenant  of  Jehovah  with  him 
in  Canaan,  the  land  of  promise ; grew  to  a nation  in  Egypt,  the 
land  of  bondage ; was  delivered  and  organized  into  a theocratic 
state  on  the  basis  of  the  law  of  Sinai  by  Moses  in  the  wilder- 
ness ; was  led  back  into  Palestine  by  Joshua ; became,  after  the 
Judges,  a monarchy,  reaching  the  height  of  its  glory  in  David 
and  Solomon ; split  into  two  hostile  kingdoms,  and,  in  punish- 
ment for  internal  discord  and  growing  apostasy  to  idolatry,  was 
carried  captive  by  heathen  conquerors ; was  restored  after  seven- 
ty years’  humiliation  to  the  land  of  its  fathers,  but  fell  again 
under  the  yoke  of  heathen  foes ; yet  in  its  deepest  abasement 
fulfilled  its  highest  mission  by  giving  birth  to  the  Saviour  of 
the  world.  “ The  history  of  the  Hebrew  people,”  says  Ewald, 
“ is,  at  the  foundation,  the  history  of  the  true  religion  growing 
through  all  the  stages  of  progress  unto  its  consummation ; 
the  religion  which,  on  its  narrow  national  territory,  advances 
through  all  struggles  to  the  highest  victory,  and  at  length  re- 
veals itself  in  its  full  glory  and  might,  to  the  end  that,  spread- 
ing abroad  by  its  own  irresistible  energy,  it  may  never  vanish 
away,  but  may  become  the  eternal  heritage  and  blessing  of  all 
nations.  The  whole  ancient  world  had  for  its  object  to  seek 
the  true  religion;  but  this  people  alone  finds  its  being  and 
honor  on  earth  exclusively  in  the  true  religion,  and  thus  it 
enters  upon  the  stage  of  history.” 3 

Judaism,  in  sharp  contrast  with  the  idolatrous  nations  of 
antiquity,  was  like  an  oasis  in  a desert,  clearly  defined  and  iso- 
lated ; separated  and  enclosed  by  a rigid  moral  and  ceremonial 
law.  The  holy  land  itself,  though  in  the  midst  of  the  three 
Continents  of  the  ancient  world,  and  surrounded  by  the  great 

1 John  4 : 22.  Comp.  Luke  24  : 47  ; Rom.  9 : 4,  5. 

5 Qe&chichte  des  Volkes  hrael , Vol.  I.  p.  9 (3d  ed.). 


§ 9.  JUDAISM. 


63 


nations  of  ancient  culture,  was  separated  from  them  by  deserts 
sou tli  and  east,  by  sea  on  the  west,  and  by  mountain  on  the 
north ; thus  securing  to  the  Mosaic  religion  freedom  to  unfold 
itself  and  to  fulfil  its  great  work  without  disturbing  influences 
from  abroad.  But  Israel  carried  in  its  bosom  from  the  first 
the  large  promise,  that  in  Abraham’s  seed  all  the  nations  of 
the  earth  should  be  blessed.  Abraham,  the  father  of  the  faith- 
ful, Moses,  the  lawgiver,  David,  the  heroic  king  and  sacred 
psalmist,  Isaiah,  the  evangelist  among  the  prophets,  Elijah  the 
Tishbite,  who  reappeared  with  Moses  on  the  Mount  of  Trans- 
figuration to  do  homage  to  Jesus,  and  John  the  Baptist,  the  im- 
personation of  the  whole  Old  Testament,  are  the  most  conspicu- 
ous links  in  the  golden  chain  of  the  ancient  revelation. 

The  outward  circumstances  and  the  moral  and  religious  con- 
dition of  the  Jews  at  the  birth  of  Christ  would  indeed  seem  at 
first  and  on  the  whole  to  be  in  glaring  contradiction  with  their 
divine  destiny.  But,  in  the  first  place,  their  very  degeneracy 
proved  the  need  of  divine  help.  In  the  second  place,  the  re- 
demption through  Christ  appeared  by  contrast  in  the  greater 
glory,  as  a creative  act  of  God.  And  finally,  amidst  the  mass 
of  corruption,  as  a preventive  of  putrefaction,  lived  the  succes- 
sion of  the  true  children  of  Abraham,  longing  for  the  salvation 
of  Israel,  and  ready  to  embrace  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  the  prom- 
ised Messiah  and  Saviour  of  the  world. 

Since  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem  by  Pompey,  b.c.  63  (the 
year  made  memorable  by  the  consulship  of  Cicero,  the  con- 
spiracy of  Catiline,  and  the  birth  of  Caesar  Augustus),  the  Jews 
had  been  subject  to  the  heathen  Bomans,  who  heartlessly  gov- 
erned them  by  the  Idumean  Herod  and  his  sons,  and  afterwards 
by  procurators.  Under  this  hated  yoke  their  Messianic  hopes 
were  powerfully  raised,  but  carnally  distorted.  They  longed 
chiefly  for  a political  deliverer,  who  should  restore  the  temporal 
dominion  of  David  on  a still  more  splendid  scale;  and  they 
were  offended  with  the  servant  form  of  Jesus,  and  with  his 
spiritual  kingdom.  Their  morals  were  outwardly  far  better 
than  those  of  the  heathen ; but  under  the  garb  of  strict  obedi- 


64 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


ence  to  their  law,  they  concealed  great  corruption.  They  are 
pictured  in  the  New  Testament  as  a stiff-necked,  ungrateful, 
and  impenitent  race,  the  seed  of  the  serpent,  a generation  of 
vipers.  Their  own  priest  and  historian,  Josephus,  who  gen- 
erally endeavored  to  present  his  countrymen  to  the  Greeks  and 
Romans  in  the  most  favorable  light,  describes  them  as  at  that 
time  a debased  and  wicked  people,  well  deserving  their  fearful 
punishment  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

As  to  religion,  the  Jews,  especially  after  the  Babylonish 
captivity,  adhered  most  tenaciously  to  the  letter  of  the  law,  and 
to  their  traditions  and  ceremonies,  but  without  knowing  the 
spirit  and  power  of  the  Scriptures.  They  cherished  a bigoted 
horror  of  the  heathen,  and  were  therefore  despised  and  hated 
by  them  as  misanthropic,  though  by  their  judgment,  industry, 
and  tact,  they  were  able  to  gain  wealth  and  consideration  in  all 
the  larger  cities  of  the  Roman  empire. 

After  the  time  of  the  Maccabees  (b.c.  150),  they  fell  into 
three  mutually  hostile  sects  or  parties,  which  respectively  repre- 
sent the  three  tendencies  of  formalism,  skepticism,  and  mysti- 
cism ; all  indicating  the  approaching  dissolution  of  the  old 
religion  and  the  dawn  of  the  new.  We  may  compare  them  to 
the  three  prevailing  schools  of  Greek  philosophy — the  Stoic, 
the  Epicurean,  and  the  Platonic,  and  also  to  the  three  sects 
of  Mohammedanism — the  Sunnis,  who  are  traditionalists,  the 
Sheas,  who  adhere  to  the  Koran,  and  the  Sufis  or  mystics,  who 
seek  true  religion  in  “ internal  divine  sensation.” 

1.  The  Pharisees,  the  “ separate,”  1 were,  so  to  speak,  the 
Jewish  Stoics.  They  represented  the  traditional  orthodoxy  and 
stiff  formalism,  the  legal  self-righteousness  and  the  fanatical 
bigotry  of  Judaism.  They  had  most  influence  with  the  people 
and  the  women,  and  controlled  the  public  worship.  They 

1 From  They  were  separated  from  ordinary  persons  and  all  foreign 

and  contaminating  influences  by  the  supposed  correctness  of  their  creed  and 
the  superior  holiness  of  their  life.  Ewald  (IV.  482) : “ Pharisder  bezeichnet 
Gesonderte  oder  Besondere,  ndmlich  Leute  die  vor  andern  durch  From - 
migkeit  ausgezeichnet  und  gleichsam  mehr  oder  heiliger  ala  andere  aein  toollen." 


§ 9.  JUDAISM. 


65 


confounded  piety  with  theoretical  orthodoxy.  They  overloaded 
the  holy  Scriptures  with  the  traditions  of  the  elders  so  as  to 
make  the  Scriptures  “ of  none  effect.”  They  analyzed  the  Mo- 
saic law  to  death,  and  substituted  a labyrinth  of  casuistry  for  a 
living  code.  “They  laid  heavy  burdens  and  grievous  to  be 
borne  on  men’s  shoulders,”  and  yet  they  themselves  would  “ not 
move  them  with  their  fingers.”  In  the  New  Testament  they 
bear  particularly  the  reproach  of  hypocrisy ; with,  of  course, 
illustrious  exceptions,  like  Nicodemus,  Gamaliel,  and  his  disci- 
ple, Paul. 

2.  The  less  numerous  Sadducees  1 were  skeptical,  rationalistic, 
and  worldly-minded,  and  held  about  the  same  position  in  Juda- 
ism as  the  Epicureans  and  the  followers  of  the  New  Academy 
in  Greek  and  Homan  heathendom.  They  accepted  the  writ- 
ten Scriptures  (especially  the  Pentateuch),  but  rejected  the 
oral  traditions,  denied  the  resurrection  of  the  body  and  the 
immortality  of  the  soul,  the  existence  of  angels  and  spirits,  and 
the  doctrine  of  an  all-ruling  providence.  They  numbered  their 
followers  among  the  rich,  and  had  for  some  time  possession  of 
the  office  of  the  high-priest.  Caiaphas  belonged  to  their  party. 

The  difference  between  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  reap- 
pears among  modern  Jews,  who  are  divided  into  the  orthodox 
and  the  liberal  or  rationalistic  parties. 

3.  The  Essenes  (whom  we  know  only  from  Philo  and  Jose- 
phus) were  not  a party,  but  a mystic  and  ascetic  order  or  broth- 
erhood, and  lived  mostly  in  monkish  seclusion  in  villages  and 
in  the  desert  Engedi  on  the  Dead  Sea.1 2  They  numbered  about 

1 So  called  either  from  their  supposed  founder,  Zadoc  (so  Ewald,  IV.  358), 
or  from  p'V'TS,  “just.” 

2 The  name  is  variously  written  (’Etrtnji'of,  'Eaaaiot,  ’ OacaToi ) and  derived 

from  proper  names,  or  from  the  Greek,  or  from  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaic. 
The  most  plausible  derivations  are  from  &r»os,  holy  5 from  aiaa,  phy- 

sician (comp,  the  corresponding  term  of  Philo,  dfpaireuT^s,  which,  however, 
means  worshipper,  devotee) ; from  seer ; from  the  rabbinical  *^n» 

watchman,  keeper  (Ewald,  formerly) ; from  aujru  to  he  silent  (Jost,  Light- 
foot)  ; from  the  Syriac  chasi  or  chasyo,  pious,  which  is  of  the  same  root 
with  the  Hebrew  chasid , chasidim  (J)e  Sacy,  Ewald,  IV.  484,  3d  ed.,  and 


66 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


4,000  members.  With  an  arbitrary,  allegorical  interpretation 
of  the  Old  Testament,  they  combined  some  foreign  theosophie 
elements,  which  strongly  resemble  the  tenets  of  the  new  Pytha- 
gorean and  Platonic  schools,  but  were  probably  derived  (like 
the  Gnostic  and  Manichsean  theories)  from  eastern  religions, 
especially  from  Parsism.  They  practised  communion  of  goods, 
wore  white  garments,  rejected  animal  food,  bloody  sacrifices, 
oaths,  slavery,  and  (with  few  exceptions)  marriage,  and  lived  in 
the  utmost  simplicity,  hoping  thereby  to  attain  a higher  degree 
of  holiness.  They  were  the  forerunners  of  Christian  monas- 
ticisin. 

The  sect  of  the  Essenes  came  seldom  or  never  into  contact 
with  Christianity  under  the  Apostles,  except  in  the  shape  of  a 
heresy  at  Colossse.  But  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  particu- 
larly the  former,  meet  us  everywhere  in  the  Gospels  as  bitter 
enemies  of  Jesus,  and  hostile  as  they  are  to  each  other,  unite  in 
condemning  him  to  that  death  of  the  cross,  which  ended  in  the 
glorious  resurrection,  and  became  the  foundation  of  spiritual 
life  to  believing  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews. 

§ 10.  The  Law , and  the  Prophecy . 

Degenerate  and  corrupt  though  the  mass  of  Judaism  was, 
yet  the  Old  Testament  economy  was  the  divine  institution  pre- 
paratory to  the  Christian  redemption,  and  as  such  received 
deepest  reverence  from  Christ  and  his  apostles,  while  they 
sought  by  terrible  rebuke  to  lead  its  unworthy  representatives 
to  repentance.  It  therefore  could  not  fail  of  its  saving  effect 
on  those  hearts  which  yielded  to  its  discipline,  and  conscien- 
tiously searched  the  Scriptures  of  Moses  and  the  prophets. 

Law  and  prophecy  are  the  two  great  elements  of  the  Jewish 
religion,  and  make  it  a direct  divine  introduction  to  Christiani- 

Hitzig).  See  Schiirer,  N.  T.  Zeitgesch.  pp.  599  sqq. , and  Lightfoot’s  instruc- 
tive Excursus  on  the  Essenes  and  the  Colossian  heresy,  in  Com.  on  Coloss. 
(1875),  pp.  73,  114-179.  Lightfoot  again  refutes  the  exploded  derivation 
of  Christianity  from  Essenic  sources. 


§ 10.  TIIE  LAW,  AND  THE  PROPHECY. 


67 


ty,  “ the  voice  of  him  that  crieth  in  the  wilderness,  Prepare  ye 
the  way  of  the  Lord ; make  straight  in  the  desert  a highway 
for  our  God.” 

1.  The  law  of  Moses  was  the  clearest  expression  of  the  holy 
will  of  God  before  the  advent  of  Christ.  The  Decalogue  is  a 
marvel  of  ancient  legislation,  and  in  its  two  tables  enjoins  the 
sum  and  substance  of  all  true  piety  and  morality — supreme  love 
to  God,  and  love  to  our  neighbor.  It  set  forth  the  ideal  of 
righteousness,  and  was  thus  fitted  most  effectually  to  awaken 
the  sense  of  man’s  great  departure  from  it,  the  knowledge  of 
sin  and  guilt.1  It  acted  as  a schoolmaster  to  lead  men  to 
Christ 3 that  they  might  be  justified  by  faith.* 

The  same  sense  of  guilt  and  of  the  need  of  reconciliation  was 
constantly  kept  alive  by  daily  sacrifices,  at  first  in  the  taber- 
nacle and  afterwards  in  the  temple,  and  by  the  whole  ceremo- 
nial law,  which,  as  a wonderful  system  of  types  and  shadows, 
perpetually  pointed  to  the  realities  of  the  new  covenant,  espe- 
pecially  to  the  one  all-sufficient  atoning  sacrifice  of  Christ  on 
the  cross. 

God  in  his  justice  requires  absolute  obedience  and  purity  of 
heart  under  promise  of  life  and  penalty  of  death.  Yet  he  can- 
not cruelly  sport  with  man ; he  is  the  truthful,  faithful,  and 
merciful  God.  In  the  moral  and  ritual  law,  therefore,  as  in  a 
shell,  is  hidden  the  sweet  kernel  of  a promise,  that  he  will  one 
day  exhibit  the  ideal  of  righteousness  in  living  form,  and  give 
the  penitent  sinner  pardon  for  all  his  transgressions  and  the 
power  to  fulfil  the  law.  Without  such  assurance  the  law  were 
bitter  irony. 

As  regards  the  law,  the  Jewish  economy  was  a religion  of 
repentance. 

2.  But  it  was  at  the  same  time,  as  already  hinted,  the  vehicle 
of  the  divine  promise  of  redemption,  and,  as  such,  a religion  of 
hope.  While  the  Greeks  and  Romans  put  their  golden  age  in 
the  past,  the  Jews  looked  for  theirs  in  the  future.  Their  whole 

1 Rom.  3 : 20  : Aict  vofiov  ixiyyuais  a/xaprlas. 

* na<5u7Ctf7&;  e*y  Xpi<rr6r.  3 Gal.  3 : 24. 


68 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


history,  their  religious,  political,  and  social  institutions  and  cus* 
toms  pointed  to  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  and  the  establish- 
ment of  his  kingdom  on  earth. 

Prophecy,  or  the  gospel  under  the  covenant  of  the  law,  is 
really  older  than  the  law,  which  was  added  afterwards  and 
came  in  between  the  promise  and  its  fulfilment,  between  sin 
and  redemption,  between  the  disease  and  the  cure.1 *  Prophecy 
begins  in  paradise  with  the  promise  of  the  serpent-bruiser  im- 
mediately after  the  fall.  It  predominates  in  the  patriarchal 
age,  especially  in  the  life  of  Abraham,  whose  piety  has  the 
corresponding  character  of  trust  and  faith ; and  Moses,  the 
lawgiver,  was  at  the  same  time  a prophet  pointing  the  people 
to  a greater  successor.3  Without  the  comfort  of  the  Messianic 
promise,  the  law  must  have  driven  the  earnest  soul  to  despair. 
From  the  time  of  Samuel,  some  eleven  centuries  before  Christ, 
prophecy,  hitherto  sporadic,  took  an  organized  form  in  a per- 
manent prophetical  office  and  order.  In  this  form  it  accom- 
panied the  Levitical  priesthood  and  the  Davidic  dynasty  down 
to  the  Babylonish  captivity,  survived  this  catastrophe,  and 
directed  the  return  of  the  people  and  the  rebuilding  of  the 
temple;  interpreting  and  applying  the  law,  reproving  abuses 
in  church  and  state,  predicting  the  terrible  judgments  and  the 
redeeming  grace  of  God,  warning  and  punishing,  comforting  and 
encouraging,  with  an  ever  plainer  reference  to  the  coming  Mes- 
siah, who  should  redeem  Israel  and  the  world  from  sin  and  misery, 
and  establish  a kingdom  of  peace  and  righteousness  on  earth. 

The  victorious  reign  of  David  and  the  peaceful  reign  of 
Solomon  furnish,  for  Isaiah  and  his  successors,  the  historical 
and  typical  ground  for  a prophetic  picture  of  a far  more  glori- 
ous future,  which,  unless  thus  attached  to  living  memories  and 
present  circumstances,  could  not  have  been  understood.  The 
subsequent  catastrophe  and  the  sufferings  of  the  captivity 

1 USfios  TTapeicrriX&cv,  came  in  besides,  was  added  as  an  accessory  arrange- 
ment, Rom.  5 : 20 ; comp.  irposeW &tj,  the  law  was  4 4 euperadded  ” to  the 

promise  given  to  Abraham,  Gal.  3 : 19. 

* Dent.  18  : 15. 


§ 10.  THE  LAW,  AND  THE  PROPHECY. 


69 


served  to  develop  the  idea  of  a Messiah  atoning  for  the  sins 
of  the  people  and  entering  through  suffering  into  glory. 

The  prophetic  was  an  extraordinary  office,  serving  partly  to 
complete,  partly  to  correct  the  regular,  hereditary  priesthood, 
to  prevent  it  from  stiffening  into  monotonous  formality,  and 
keep  it  in  living  flow.  The  prophets  were,  so  to  speak,  the 
Protestants  of  the  ancient  covenant,  the  ministers  of  the  spirit 
and  of  immediate  communion  with  God,  in  distinction  from 
the  ministers  of  the  letter  and  of  traditional  and  ceremonial 
mediation. 

The  flourishing  period  of  our  canonical  prophecy  began  with 
the  eighth  century  before  Christ,  some  seven  centuries  after 
Moses,  when  Israel  was  suffering  under  Assyrian  oppression. 
In  this  period  before  the  captivity,  Isaiah  (“the  salvation  of 
God  ”),  who  appeared  in  the  last  years  of  king  Uzziah,  about 
ten  years  before  the  founding  of  Pome,  is  the  leading  figure ; 
and  around  him  Micah,  Joel,  and  Obadiali  in  the  kingdom  of 
Judah,  and  Iiosea,  Amos,  and  Jonah  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel, 
are  grouped.  Isaiah  reached  the  highest  elevation  of  prophecy, 
and  unfolds  feature  by  feature  a picture  of  the  Messiah — 
springing  from  the  house  of  David,  preaching  the  glad  tidings 
to  the  poor,  healing  the  broken-hearted,  opening  the  eyes  to  the 
blind,  setting  at  liberty  the  captives,  offering  himself  as  a lamb 
to  the  slaughter,  bearing  the  sins  of  the  people,  dying  the  just 
for  the  unjust,  triumphing  over  death  and  ruling  as  king  of 
peace  over  all  nations — a picture  wrhich  came  to  its  complete 
fulfilment  in  one  person,  and  one  only,  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  He 
makes  the  nearest  approach  to  the  cross,  and  his  book  is  the 
Gospel  of  the  Old  Testament.  In  the  period  of  the  Babylonian 
exile,  Jeremiah  (i.  e.  u the  Lord  casts  down  ”)  stands  chief.  He 
is  the  prophet  of  sorrow,  and  yet  of  the  new  covenant  of  the 
Spirit.  In  his  denunciations  of  priests  and  false  prophets,  his 
lamentations  over  Jerusalem,  his  holy  grief,  his  bitter  persecu- 
tion, he  resembles  the  mission  and  life  of  Christ.  He  remained 
in  the  land  of  his  fathers,  and  sang  his  lamentation  on  the  ruins 
of  Jerusalem ; while  Ezekiel  warned  the  exiles  on  the  river 


70 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Chebar  against  false  prophets  and  carnal  hopes,  urged  them  to 
repentance,  and  depicted  the  new  Jerusalem  and  the  revival  of 
the  dry  bones  of  the  people  by  the  breath  of  God ; and  Daniel 
at  the  court  of  Nebuchadnezzar  in  Babylon  saw  in  the  spirit 
the  succession  of  the  four  empires  and  the  final  triumph  of  the 
eternal  kingdom  of  the  Son  of  Man.  The  prophets  of  the 
restoration  are  Ilaggai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi.  With  Malachi, 
who  lived  to  the  time  of  Nehemiah,  the  Old  Testament  prophe- 
cy ceased,  and  Israel  was  left  to  himself  four  hundred  years,  to 
digest  during  this  period  of  expectation  the  rich  substance  of 
that  revelation,  and  to  prepare  the  birth-place  for  the  approach- 
ing redemption. 

3.  Immediately  before  the  advent  of  the  Messiah  the  whole 
Old  Testament,  the  law  and  the  prophets,  Moses  and  Isaiah 
together,  reappeared  for  a short  season  embodied  in  John  the 
Baptist,  and  then  in  unrivalled  humility  disappeared  as  the 
red  dawn  in  the  splendor  of  the  rising  sun  of  the  new  covenant. 
This  remarkable  man,  earnestly  preaching  repentance  in  the 
wilderness  and  laying  the  axe  at  the  root  of  the  tree,  and  at  the 
same  time  comforting  with  prophecy  and  pointing  to  the  aton- 
ing Lamb  of  God,  was  indeed,  as  the  immediate  forerunner  of 
the  New  Testament  economy,  and  the  personal  friend  of  the 
heavenly  Bridegroom,  the  greatest  of  them  that  were  born  of 
woman ; yet  in  his  official  character  as  the  representative  of  the 
ancient  preparatory  economy  he  stands  lower  than  the  least  in 
that  kingdom  of  Christ,  which  is  infinitely  more  glorious  than 
all  its  types  and  shadows  in  the  past. 

This  is  the  Jewish  religion,  as  it  flowed  from  the  fountain  of 
divine  revelation  and  lived  in  the  true  Israel,  the  spiritual  chil- 
dren of  Abraham,  in  John  the  Baptist,  his  parents  and  disci- 
ples, in  the  mother  of  Jesus,  her  kindred  and  friends,  in  the 
venerable  Simeon,  and  the  prophetess  Anna,  in  Lazarus  and  his 
pious  sisters,  in  the  apostles  and  the  first  disciples,  who  em- 
braced Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  the  fulfiller  of  the  law  and  the 
prophets,  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  and 
who  were  the  first  fruits  of  the  Christian  Church. 


§ 11.  HEATHENISM. 


71 


§ 11.  Heathenism, 

Literature. 

I.  Sources. 

The  works  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  Classics  from  Homer  to  Virgil  and 
the  age  of  the  Antonines. 

The  monuments  of  Antiquity. 

The  writings  of  the  early  Christian  Apologists,  especially  Justin  Martyr  : 
Apologia  I.  and  II.;  Tertullian  : Apologeticus ; Minucius  Felix: 
Octavius ; Eusebius  : Praeparatio  Evangelica ; and  Augustine  (d. 
430)  : Be  Civitate  Dei  (the  first  ten  books). 

II.  Later  Works. 

Is.  Vossius:  Be  theologia  gentili  et  physiolog.  Christ.  Frcf.  1675,  2 vols. 

Creuzer  (d.  1858)  : Symbolik  und  Mythologie  der  alten  V biker.  Leipz.  3d 
ed.  1837  sqq.  3 vols. 

Tholuck  (d.  1877) : Bas  Wesen  und  der  sittliche  Einfluss  des  Heidenthums , 
besonders  unter  den  Griechen  und  Romem,  mit  Hinsicht  auf  das  Chris- 
tenthum.  Berlin,  1823.  In  Neander’s  Denkwurdigkeiten , vol.  i.  of 
the  1st  ed.  Afterwards  separately  printed.  English  translation  by 
Emerson  in  “Am.  Bibl.  Repository”  for  1832. 

Tzschirner  (d.  1828)  : Ber  Fall  des  Heidenthums , ed.  by  Niedner.  Leipz. 
1829,  1st  vol. 

O.  Muller  (d.  1840) : Prolegomena  zu  einer  wissenscha/tl.  Mythologie. 
Gott.  1825.  Transl.  into  English  by  J.  Leitch.  Lond.  1844. 

Hegel  (d.  1831)  : Philosophie  der  Religion.  Berl.  1837,  2 vols. 

Stuhr  : Allgem.  Gesch.  der  Religionsfoi'men  der  heidnischen  V olker.  Berl. 
1836,  1837,  2 vols.  (vol.  2d  on  the  Hellenic  Religion). 

Hartung  : Die  Religion  der  Romer.  Erl.  1836,  2 vols. 

C.  F.  Nagelsbach  : Homerische  Tlieologie.  Nurnb.  1840;  2d  ed.  1861. 
The  same : Die  nach-homerische  Theologie  des  Griechischen  Volks- 
glaubens  bis  auf  Alexander.  Numb.  1857. 

Sepp  (R.  C.)  : Bas  Heidenthum  und  dessen  Bedeutung  fur  das  Christen - 
(hum.  Regensb.  1853,  3 vols. 

Wuttke  : Geschichte  des  Heidenthums  in  Beziehung  auf  Religion , Wissen, 
Kunst,  Sittlichkeit  und  Staatsleben.  Bresl.  1852  sqq.  2 vols. 

Schelling  (d.  1854)  : Einleitung  in  die  Philosophie  dei'  Mythologie.  Stuttg. 
1856  ; and  Philosophie  der  Mythologie.  Stuttg.  1857. 

Maurice  (d.  1872) : The  Religions  of  the  World  in  their  Relations  to  Chris - 
tianity.  Lond.  1854  (reprinted  in  Boston). 

Trench  : Hulsean  Lectures  for  1845-’46.  No.  2 : Christ  the  Desire  of  all 
Nations , or  the  Unconscious  Prophecies  of  Heathendom  (a  commentary 
on  the  star  of  the  wise  men,  Matt.  ii.).  Cambr.  4th  ed.  1854  (also 
Philad.  1850). 

L.  Preller  : Griechische  Mythologie.  Berlin,  1854,  3d  ed.  1875,  2 vols. 


72 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


By  the  same ; Romische  Mythologie.  Berlin,  1858 ; 3d  ed.,  by  H. 
Jordan,  1881-83,  2 vols. 

M.  W.  Heffter  : Griech.  und  Rom.  Mythologie.  Leipzig,  1854. 
Dollinger  : Heidenthum  und  Judenthum,  quoted  in  g 8. 

C.  Schmidt  : Essai  historique  sur  la  societe  civil  dans  le  monde  romain  et 
sur  sa  transformation  par  le  christianisme.  Paris,  1853. 

C.  G.  Seibert  : Griechenthum  und  Christenthum , oder  der  Vorhof  des 
Schonen  und  das  Heiligthum  der  Wahrheit.  Barmen,  1857. 

Fr.  Fabri  : Die  Entstehung  des  Heidenthums  und  die  Aufgabe  der  Heiden- 
mission.  Barmen,  1859. 

W.  E.  Gladstone  (the  English  statesman)  : Studies  on  Homer  and  the 
Homeric  Age.  Oxf.  1858,  3 vols.  (vol.  ii.  Olympus;  or  the  Religion 
of  the  Homeric  Age).  The  same:  Juventus  Mundi : the  Gods  and 
Men  of  the  Heroic  Age.  2d  ed.  Lond.  1870.  (Embodies  the  results 
of  the  larger  work,  with  several  modifications  in  the  ethnological 
and  mythological  portions.) 

W.  S.  Tyler  (Prof,  in  Amherst  Coll.,  Mass.) : The  Theology  of  the  Greek 
Poets.  Boston,  1867. 

B.  F.  Cocker  : Christianity  and  Greek  Philosophy  ; or  the  Relation  between 
Reflective  Thought  in  Greece  and  the  Positive  Teaching  of  Christ  and 
his  Apostles.  N.  York,  1870. 

Edm.  Spiess  : Logos  spermaticos.  Parallelstellen  zum  N.  Test,  aus  den 
Schriften  der  alien  Griechen.  Ein  Reitrag  zur  christl.  Apologetik  und 
zur  vergleichenden  Religionsforsch  ung.  Leipz.  1871. 

G.  Boissier  : La  religion  romaine  d’ Auguste  aux  Antonins.  Paris,  1884, 
2 vols. 

J.  Revtlle  : La  religion  & Rome  sous  les  Severes.  Paris,  1886. 

Comp,  the  histories  of  Greece  by  Thirlwall,  Grote,  and  Curtius; 
the  histories  of  Rome  by  Gibbon,  Niebuhr,  Arnold,  Merivale, 
Schwegler,  Ihne,  Duruy  (transl.  from  the  French  by  W.  J.  Clarke), 
and  Mommsen.  Ranke’s  Weltgesckichte.  Th.  iii.  1882.  Schiller’s 
Gesch.  der  romischen  Kaiser zeit.  1882. 

Heathenism  is  religion  in  its  wild  growth  on  the  soil  of 
fallen  human  nature,  a darkening  of  the  original  consciousness 
of  God,  a deification  of  the  rational  and  irrational  creature,  and 
a corresponding  corruption  of  the  moral  sense,  giving  the  sanc- 
tion of  religion  to  natural  and  unnatural  vices.1 

Even  the  religion  of  Greece,  which,  as  an  artistic  product  of 
the  imagination,  has  been  justly  styled  the  religion  of  beauty, 
is  deformed  by  this  moral  distortion.  It  utterly  lacks  the  true 
conception  of  sin,  and  consequently  the  true  conception  of  holi- 
ness. It  regards  sin,  not  as  a perverseness  of  will  and  an 
1 Comp.  Paul’s  picture  of  heathen  immorality,  Rom.  1 : 19-32. 


§ 11.  HEATHENISM. 


73 


offence  against  the  gods,  but  as  a folly  of  the  understanding 
and  an  offence  against  men,  often  even  proceeding  from  the 
gods  themselves ; for  “ Infatuation,”  or  Moral  Blindness  (''Attj), 
is  a “daughter  of  Jove,”  and  a goddess,  though  cast  from 
Olympus,  and  the  source  of  all  mischief  upon  earth.  Homer 
knows  no  devil,  but  he  puts  a devilish  element  into  his  deities. 
The  Greek  gods,  and  also  the  Iloman  gods,  who  were  copied 
from  the  former,  are  mere  men  and  women,  in  whom  Ilomer 
and  the  popular  faith  saw  and  worshipped  the  weaknesses  and 
vices  of  the  Grecian  character,  as  well  as  its  virtues,  in  magni- 
fied forms.  The  gods  are  born,  but  never  die.  They  have 
bodies  and  senses,  like  mortals,  only  in  colossal  proportions. 
They  eat  and  drink,  though  only  nectar  and  ambrosia.  They 
are  awake  and  fall  asleep.  They  travel,  but  with  the  swiftness 
of  thought.  They  mingle  in  battle.  They  cohabit  with  human 
beings,  producing  heroes  or  demigods.  They  are  limited  to 
time  and  space.  Though  sometimes  honored  with  the  attri- 
butes of  omnipotence  and  omniscience,  and  called  holy  and  just, 
yet  they  are  subject  to  an  iron  fate  (Moira),  fall  under  delusion, 
and  reproach  each  other  with  folly  and  crime.  Their  heavenly 
happiness  is  disturbed  by  all  the  troubles  of  earthly  life.  Even 
Zeus  or  Jupiter,  the  patriarch  of  the  Olympian  family,  is 
cheated  by  his  sister  and  wife  Hera  (Juno),  with  whom  he  had 
lived  three  hundred  years  in  secret  marriage  before  he  pro- 
claimed her  his  consort  and  queen  of  the  gods,  and  is  kept  in 
ignorance  of  the  events  before  Troy.  He  threatens  his  fellows 
with  blows  and  death,  and  makes  Olympus  tremble  when  he 
shakes  his  locks  in  anger.  The  gentle  Aphrodite  or  Yenus 
bleeds  from  a spear-wound  on  her  finger.  Mars  is  felled  with 
a stone  by  Diomedes.  Neptune  and  Apollo  have  to  serve  for 
hire  and  are  cheated.  Hephaestus  limps  and  provokes  an  up- 
roarious laughter.  The  gods  are  involved  by  their  marriages 
in  perpetual  jealousies  and  quarrels.  They  are  full  of  envy 
and  wrath,  hatred  and  lust,  prompt  men  to  crime,  and  provoke 
each  other  to  lying  and  cruelty,  perjury  and  adultery.  The 
Iliad  and  Odyssey,  the  most  popular  poems  of  the  Hellenic 


74 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


genius,  are  a chronique  scandaleuse  of  the  gods.  Hence  Plato 
banished  them  from  his  ideal  Republic.  Pindar,  Aeschylos,  and 
Sophocles  also  rose  to  loftier  ideas  of  the  gods  and  breathed 
a purer  moral  atmosphere ; but  they  represented  the  excep- 
tional creed  of  a few,  while  Homer  expressed  the  popular  be- 
lief. Truly  we  have  no  cause  to  long  with  Schiller  for  the 
return  of  the  “ gods  of  Greece,”  but  would  rather  join  the  poet 
in  his  joyful  thanksgiving : 

“ Einen  zu  bereichern  unter  alien, 

Musste  diese  Gbtterwelt  vergehn.  ” 

Notwithstanding  this  essential  apostasy  from  truth  and  holi- 
ness, heathenism  was  religion,  a groping  after  “ the  unknown 
God.”  By  its  superstition  it  betrayed  the  need  of  faith.  Its 
polytheism  rested  on  a dim  monotheistic  background ; it  sub- 
jected all  the  gods  to  Jupiter,  and  Jupiter  himself  to  a mysteri- 
ous fate.  It  had  at  bottom  the  feeling  of  dependence  on  higher 
powers  and  reverence  for  divine  things.  It  preserved  the 
memory  of  a golden  age  and  of  a fall.  It  had  the  voice  of 
conscience,  and  a sense,  obscure  though  it  was,  of  guilt.  It  felt 
the  need  of  reconciliation  with  deity,  and  sought  that  recon- 
ciliation by  prayer,  penance,  and  sacrifice.  Many  of  its  religi- 
ous traditions  and  usages  were  faint  echoes  of  the  primal  re- 
ligion ; and  its  mythological  dreams  of  the  mingling  of  the 
gods  with  men,  of  demigods,  of  Prometheus  delivered  by  Her- 
cules from  his  helpless  sufferings,  were  unconscious  prophecies 
and  fleshly  anticipations  of  Christian  truths. 

This  alone  explains  the  great  readiness  with  which  heathens 
embraced  the  gospel,  to  the  shame  of  the  Jews.1 

There  was  a spiritual  Israel  scattered  throughout  the  heathen 
world,  that  never  received  the  circumcision  of  the  flesh,  but  the 
unseen  circumcision  of  the  heart  by  the  hand  of  that  Spirit  which 
blowetli  where  it  listeth,  and  is  not  bound  to  any  human  laws 
and  to  ordinary  means.  The  Old  Testament  furnishes  several 


1 Comp.  Matt.  8 : 10  ; 15  : 28.  Luke  7 : 9.  Acts  10  : 35. 


§11.  HEATHENISM. 


75 


examples  of  true  piety  outside  of  the  visible  communion  with 
the  Jewish  church,  in  the  persons  of  Melchisedec,  the  friend 
of  Abraham,  the  royal  priest,  the  type  of  Christ;  Jethro,  the 
priest  of  Midian ; Rahab,  the  Canaanite  woman  and  hostess  of 
J oshua  and  Caleb ; Ruth,  the  Moabitess  and  ancestress  of  our 
Saviour ; King  Hiram,  the  friend  of  David ; the  queen  of 
Sheba,  who  came  to  admire  the  wisdom  of  Solomon ; Naaman 
the  Syrian  ; and  especially  Job,  the  sublime  sufferer,  who  re- 
joiced in  the  hope  of  his  Redeemer.1 

The  elements  of  truth,  morality,  and  piety  scattered  through- 
out ancient  heathenism,  may  be  ascribed  to  three  sources.  In 
the  first  place,  man,  even  in  his  fallen  state,  retains  some  traces 
of  the  divine  image,  a knowledge  of  God,2  however  weak,  a 
moral  sense  or  conscience,3  and  a longing  for  union  with  the 
Godhead,  for  truth  and  for  righteousness.4 5  In  this  view  we 
may,  with  Tertullian,  call  the  beautiful  and  true  sentences  of  a 
Socrates,  a Plato,  an  Aristotle,  of  Pindar,  Sophocles,  Cicero, Vir- 
gil, Seneca,  Plutarch,  “ the  testimonies  of  a soul  constitution- 
ally Christian,” 6 of  a nature  predestined  to  Christianity.  Sec- 
ondly, some  account  must  be  made  of  traditions  and  recollec- 
tions, however  faint,  coming  down  from  the  general  primal 
revelations  to  Adam  and  Noah.  But  the  third  and  most  im- 
portant source  of  the  heathen  anticipations  of  truth  is  the  all- 
ruling providence  of  God,  who  has  never  left  himself  without  a 
witness.  Particularly  must  wre  consider,  with  the  ancient  Greek 
fathers,  the  influence  of  the  divine  Logos  before  his  incarnation,6 

1 Even  Augustine,  exclusive  as  he  was,  adduces  the  case  of  Job  in  proof  of 
the  assertion  that  the  kingdom  of  God  under  the  Old  dispensation  was  not 
confined  to  the  Jews,  and  then  adds  : “ Diviniths  autem  provisum  fume  non 
dubito,  ut  ex  hoc  uno  sciremus,  etiarn  per  alias  gentes  esse  potuisse,  qui  secun- 
dum Deum  vixerunt,  eique  placuerunt,  pertinentes  ad  spiritualem  Hierusalem 
De  Civit.  Dei , xviii.  47. 

2 Rom.  1 : 19,  rb  yvuxrrbv  rov  &eov.  Comp,  my  annotations  on  Lange  in  loc. 

3 Rom.  2 : 14,  15.  Comp.  Lange  in  loc. 

4 Comp.  Acts  17  : 28,  27,  28.  and  my  remarks  on  the  altar  to  the  &ebs  &yvuoroa 
in  the  Ilistoi'y  of  the  Apost.  Church . § 73,  p.  269  sqq. 

5 Testimonia  animae  naturaliter  Christiana 4. 

6 A6yos  iaapsos,  A6yos  <nr(pp.aTiKos. 


76 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


who  was  the  tutor  of  mankind,  the  original  light  of  reason,  shin* 
ing  in  the  darkness  and  lighting  every  man,  the  sower  scattering 
in  the  soil  of  heathendom  the  seeds  of  truth,  beauty,  and  virtue.1 

The  flower  of  paganism,  with  which  we  are  concerned  here, 
appears  in  the  two  great  nations  of  classic  antiquity,  Greece  and 
Rome.  With  the  language,  morality,  literature,  and  religion 
of  these  nations,  the  apostles  came  directly  into  contact,  and 
through  the  whole  first  age  the  church  moves  on  the  basis  of 
these  nationalities.  These,  together  with  the  Jews,  were  the 
chosen  nations  of  the  ancient  world,  and  shared  the  earth 
among  them.  The  Jews  were  chosen  for  things  eternal,  to 
keep  the  sanctuary  of  the  true  religion.  The  Greeks  prepared 
the  elements  of  natural  culture,  of  science  and  art,  for  the  use 
of  the  church.  The  Romans  developed  the  idea  of  law,  and 
organized  the  civilized  world  in  a universal  empire,  ready  to 
serve  the  spiritual  universality  of  the  gospel.  Both  Greeks  and 
Romans  were  unconscious  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  “ the  un- 
known God.” 

These  three  nations,  by  nature  at  bitter  enmity  among  them- 
selves, joined  hands  in  the  superscription  on  the  cross,  where 
the  holy  name  and  the  royal  title  of  the  Redeemer  stood  writ- 
ten, by  the  command  of  the  heathen  Pilate,  “ in  Hebrew  and 
Greek  and  Latin.”8 

§ 12.  Grecian  Literature , and  the  Roman  Empire. 

The  literature  of  the  ancient  Greeks  and  the  universal  em- 
pire of  the  Romans  were,  next  to  the  Mosaic  religion,  the  chief 
agents  in  preparing  the  world  for  Christianity.  They  fur- 
nished the  human  forms,  in  which  the  divine  substance  of  the 
gospel,  thoroughly  prepared  in  the  bosom  of  the  Jewish  theoc- 
racy, was  moulded.  They  laid  the  natural  foundation  for  the 
supernatural  edifice  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  God  endowed 
the  Greeks  and  Romans  with  the  richest  natural  gifts,  that  they 


Comp.  John  1 : 4,  5,  9,  10. 


2 John  19  : 20. 


§ 12.  GRECIAN  LITERATURE,  AND  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE.  77 

might  reach  the  highest  civilization  possible  without  the  aid  of 
Christianity,  and  thus  both  provide  the  instruments  of  human 
science,  art,  and  law  for  the  use  of  the  church,  and  yet  at  the 
same  time  show  the  utter  impotence  of  these  alone  to  bless  and 
save  the  world. 

The  Greeks,  few  in  number,  like  the  Jews,  but  vastly  more 
important  iri  history  than  the  numberless  hordes  of  the  Asiatic 
empires,  were  called  to  the  noble  task  of  bringing  out,  under  a 
sunny  sky  and  with  a clear  mind,  the  idea  of  humanity  in  its 
natural  vigor  and  beauty,  but  also  in  its  natural  imperfection. 
They  developed  the  principles  of  science  and  art.  They  lib- 
erated the  mind  from  the  dark  powers  of  nature  and  the  gloomy 
broodings  of  the  eastern  mysticism.  They  rose  to  the  clear 
and  free  consciousness  of  manhood,  boldly  investigated  the  laws 
of  nature  and  of  spirit,  and  carried  out  the  idea  of  beauty  in  all 
sorts  of  artistic  forms.  In  poetry,  sculpture,  architecture, 
painting,  philosophy,  rhetoric,  historiography,  they  left  true 
master-pieces,  which  are  to  this  day  admired  and  studied  as 
models  of  form  and  taste. 

All  these  works  became  truly  valuable  and  useful  only  in  the 
hands  of  the  Christian  church,  to  which  they  ultimately  fell. 
Greece  gave  the  apostles  the  most  copious  and  beautiful  lan- 
guage to  express  the  divine  truth  of  the  Gospel,  and  Providence 
had  long  before  so  ordered  political  movements  as  to  spread  that 
language  over  the  world  and  to  make  it  the  organ  of  civilization 
and  international  intercourse,  as  the  Latin  was  in  the  middle 
ages,  as  the  French  was  in  the  eighteenth  century,  and  as  the 
English  is  coming  to  be  in  the  nineteenth.  “ Greek,”  says  Cice- 
ro, “ is  read  in  almost  all  nations ; Latin  is  confined  by  its  own 
narrow  boundaries.”  Greek  schoolmasters  and  artists  followed 
the  conquering  legions  of  Pome  to  Gaul  and  Spain.  The 
youthful  hero  Alexander  the  Great,  a Macedonian  indeed  by 
birth,  yet  an  enthusiastic  admirer  of  Homer,  an  emulator  of 
Achilles,  a disciple  of  the  philosophic  world-conqueror,  Aris- 
totle, and  thus  the  truest  Greek  of  his  age,  conceived  the  sub- 
lime thought  of  making  Babylon  the  seat  of  a Grecian  empire 


78 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


of  the  world ; and  though  his  empire  fell  to  pieces  at  his  un- 
timely death,  yet  it  had  already  carried  Greek  letters  to  the 
borders  of  India,  and  made  them  a common  possession  of  all 
civilized  nations.  What  Alexander  had  begun  Julius  Caesar 
completed.  Under  the  protection  of  the  Roman  law  the  apos- 
tles could  travel  everywhere  and  make  themselves  understood 
through  the  Greek  language  in  every  city  of  the  Roman  domain. 

The  Grecian  philosophy,  particularly  the  systems  of  Plato 
and  Aristotle,  formed  the  natural  basis  for  scientific  theology  ; 
Grecian  eloquence,  for  sacred  oratory  ; Grecian  art,  for  that  of 
the  Christian  church.  Indeed,  not  a few  ideas  and  maxims  of 
the  classics  tread  on  the  threshold  of  revelation,  and  sound  like 
prophecies  of  Christian  truth  ; especially  the  spiritual  soarings 
of  Plato,1  the  deep  religious  reflections  of  Plutarch,2  the  some- 
times almost  Pauline  moral  precepts  of  Seneca.3  To  many  of 
the  greatest  church  fathers,  Justin  Martyr,  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, Origen,  and  in  some  measure  even  to  Augustine,  Greek 
philosophy  was  a bridge  to  the  Christian  faith,  a scientific 
schoolmaster  leading  them  to  Christ.  Hay,  the  whole  ancient 
Greek  church  rose  on  the  foundation  of  the  Greek  language 
and  nationality,  and  is  inexplicable  without  them. 

Here  lies  the  real  reason  why  the  classical  literature  is  to  this 
day  made  the  basis  of  liberal  education  throughout  the  Chris- 
tian world.  Youth  are  introduced  to  the  elementary  forms  of 
science  and  art,  to  models  of  clear,  tasteful  style,  and  to  self- 
made  humanity  at  the  summit  of  intellectual  and  artistic  cul- 
ture, and  thus  they  are  at  the  same  time  trained  to  the  scientific 
apprehension  of  the  Christian  religion,  which  appeared  when 

1 Compare  C.  Ackermann,  The  Christian  Element  in  Plato  and  the  Platonic 
Philosophy , 1835,  transl.  from  the  German  by  S.  R.  Asbury,  with  an  introduc- 
tory note  by  Dr.  Shedd.  Edinburgh,  1861. 

2 As  in  his  excellent  treatise  : De  sera  numinis  vindicta.  It  is  strange  that 
this  philosopher,  whose  moral  sentiments  come  nearest  to  Christianity,  never 
alludes  to  it.  Epictetus  and  Marcus  Aurelius  do  mention  it,  but  only  once. 

3 On  the  relation  of  Paul  and  Seneca  comp,  an  elaborate  dissertation  of 
Bishop  Lightfoot  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Philippian* , pp.  268-331  (3d  ed. 
1873). 


§ 12.  GRECIAN  LITERATURE,  AND  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE.  70 


tlie  development  of  Greek  and  Roman  civilization  had  reached 
its  culmination  and  began  already  to  decay.  Tlie  Greek  and 
Latin  languages,  as  the  Sanskrit  and  Hebrew,  died  in  their 
youth  and  were  embalmed  and  preserved  from  decay  in  the 
immortal  works  of  the  classics.  They  still  furnish  the  best 
scientific  terms  for  every  branch  of  learning  and  art  and  every 
new  invention.  The  primitive  records  of  Christianity  have 
been  protected  against  the  uncertainties  of  interpretation  inci- 
dent upon  the  constant  changes  of  a living  language. 

But  aside  from  the  permanent  value  of  the  Grecian  litera- 
ture, the  glory  of  its  native  land  had,  at  the  birth  of  Christ, 
already  irrecoverably  departed.  Civil  liberty  and  independence 
had  been  destroyed  by  internal  discord  and  corruption.  Phi- 
losophy had  run  down  into  skepticism  and  refined  materialism. 
Art  had  been  degraded  to  the  service  of  levity  and  sensuality.  In- 
fidelity or  superstition  had  supplanted  sound  religious  sentiment. 
Dishonesty  and  licentiousness  reigned  among  high  and  low. 

This  hopeless  state  of  things  could  not  but  impress  the  more 
earnest  and  noble  souls  with  the  emptiness  of  all  science  and 
art,  and  the  utter  insufficiency  of  this  natural  culture  to  meet 
the  deeper  wants  of  the  heart.  It  must  fill  them  with  longings 
for  a new  religion. 

The  Romans  were  the  practical  and  political  nation  of  anti- 
quity. Their  calling  was  to  carry  out  the  idea  of  the  state  and 
of  civil  law,  and  to  unite  the  nations  of  the  world  in  a colossal 
empire,  stretching  from  the  Euphrates  to  the  Atlantic,  and 
from  the  Libyan  desert  to  the  banks  of  the  Rhine.  This  em- 
pire embraced  the  most  fertile  and  civilized  countries  of  Asia, 
Africa,  and  Europe,  and  about  one  hundred  millions  of  human 
beings,  perhaps  one-third  of  the  whole  race  at  the  time  of  the 
introduction  of  Christianity.1  To  this  outward  extent  corre- 

1 Charles  Merivale,  in  his  History  of  the  Romans  under  the  Empire  (Lond. 
1856),  yoI.  iv.  p.  450  and  451,  estimates  the  population  of  the  Roman  empire 
in  the  age  of  Augustus  at  85  millions,  namely,  40  millions  for  Europe,  28 
millions  for  Asia,  and  17  millions  for  Africa,  but  he  does  not  include  Palestine. 
Greswell  and  others  raise  the  estimate  of  the  whole  population  to  120  millions. 


80 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


sponds  its  historical  significance.  The  history  of  every  ancient 
nation  ends,  says  Niebuhr,  as  the  history  of  every  modern  na- 
tion begins,  in  that  of  Home.  Its  history  has  therefore  a 
Universal  interest ; it  is  a vast  storehouse  of  the  legacies  of 
antiquity.  If  the  Greeks  had,  of  all  nations,  the  deepest  mind, 
and  in  literature  even  gave  laws  to  their  conquerors,  the  Ho- 
mans had  the  strongest  character,  and  were  born  to  rule  the 
world  without.  This  difference  of  course  reached  even  into  the 
moral  and  religious  life  of  the  two  nations.  Was  the  Greek 
mythology  the  work  of  artistic  fantasy  and  a religion  of  poesy, 
so  was  the  Homan  the  work  of  calculation  adapted  to  state 
purposes,  political  and  utilitarian,  but  at  the  same  time  solemn, 
earnest,  and  energetic.  “ The  Homans  had  no  love  of  beauty, 
like  the  Greeks.  They  held  no  communion  with  nature,  like 
the  Germans.  Their  one  idea  was  Home — not  ancient,  fabu- 
lous, poetical  Home,  but  Home  warring  and  conquering ; and 
orbls  terrarum  domina.  S.  P.  Q.  P.  is  inscribed  on  almost 
every  page  of  their  literature.”  1 

The  Homans  from  the  first  believed  themselves  called  to 
govern  the  world.  They  looked  upon  all  foreigners — not  as 
barbarians,  like  the  cultured  Greeks,  but — as  enemies  to  be 
conquered  and  reduced  to  servitude.  War  and  triumph  were 
their  highest  conception  of  human  glory  and  happiness.  The 

“ Tu , r eg  ere  imperio  populos,  Uomane , memento  ! ” 

had  been  their  motto,  in  fact,  long  before  Virgil  thus  gave  it 
form.  The  very  name  of  the  urbs  ceterna , and  the  charac- 
teristic legend  of  its  founding,  prophesied  its  future.  In  their 
greatest  straits  the  Homans  never  for  a moment  despaired  of 
the  commonwealth.  With  vast  energy,  profound  policy,  un- 
wavering consistency,  and  wolf-like  rapacity,  they  pursued  their 
ambitious  schemes,  and  became  indeed  the  lords,  but  also,  as 
their  greatest  historian,  Tacitus,  says,  the  insatiable  robbers  of 
the  world.2 

1 Hare,  Guesses  at  Truth,  p.  432  (Lond.  ed.  1807). 

* Raptores  orbis,  quos  non  oriens , non  occidens  satiaveriV* 


12.  GRECIAN  LITERATURE,  AND  TIIE  ROMAN  EMPIRE.  81 


Having  conquered  the  world  by  the  sword,  they  organized  it 
by  law,  before  whose  majesty  every  people  had  to  bow,  and 
beautified  it  by  the  arts  of  peace.  Philosophy,  eloquence, 
history,  and  poetry  enjoyed  a golden  age  under  the  setting  sun 
of  the  republic  and  the  rising  sun  of  the  empire,  and  extended 
their  civilizing  influence  to  the  borders  of  barbarianism.  Al- 
though not  creative  in  letters  and  flue  arts,  the  Homan  authors 
were  successful  imitators  of  Greek  philosophers,  orators,  his- 
torians, and  poets.  Home  was  converted  by  Augustus  from  a 
city  of  brick  huts  into  a city  of  marble  palaces.1  The  finest 
paintings  and  sculptures  were  imported  from  Greece,  triumphal 
arches  and  columns  were  erected  on  public  places,  and  the 
treasures  of  all  parts  of  the  world  were  made  tributary  to  the 
pride,  beauty,  and  luxury  of  the  capital.  The  provinces  caught 
the  spirit  of  improvement,  populous  cities  sprung  up,  and  the 
magnificent  temple  of  J erusalem  was  rebuilt  by  the  ambitious 
extravagance  of  Herod.  The  rights  of  persons  and  property 
were  well  protected.  The  conquered  nations,  though  often  and 
justly  complaining  of  the  rapacity  of  provincial  governors,  yet, 
on  the  whole,  enjoyed  greater  security  against  domestic  feuds 
and  foreign  invasion,  a larger  share  of  social  comfort,  and  rose 
to  a higher  degree  of  secular  civilization.  The  ends  of  the 
empire  were  brought  into  military,  commercial,  and  literary 
communication  by  carefully  constructed  roads,  the  traces  of 
which  still  exist  in  Syria,  on  the  Alps,  on  the  banks  of  the 
Hliine.  The  facilities  and  security  of  travel  were  greater  in 
the  reign  of  the  Caesars  than  in  any  subsequent  period  before 
the  nineteenth  century.  Five  main  lines  went  out  from  Rome 
to  the  extremities  of  the  empire,  and  were  connected  at  seaports 
with  maritime  routes.  “We  may  travel,”  says  a Homan  writer, 
“ at  all  hours,  and  sail  from  east  to  west.”  Merchants  brought 
diamonds  from  the  East,  ambers  from  the  shores  of  the  Baltic, 
precious  metals  from  Spain,  wild  animals  from  Africa,  works 
of  art  from  Greece,  and  every  article  of  luxury,  to  the  market 

1 So  the  nephew  of  the  modem  Caesar  transformed  Paris  into  a city  of 
straight  and  broad  streets  and  magnificent  palaces. 


82 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


on  the  banks  of  the  Tiber,  as  they  now  do  to  the  banks  of  the 
Thames.  The  Apocalyptic  seer,  in  his  prophetic  picture  of  the 
downfall  of  the  imperial  mistress  of  the  world,  gives  promi- 
nence to  her  vast  commerce  : “ And  the  merchants  of  the 
earth,”  he  says,  “weep  and  mourn  over  her;  for  no  man 
buyeth  their  merchandise  any  more : merchandise  of  gold,  and 
silver,  and  precious  stone,  and  pearls,  and  fine  linen,  and  purple, 
and  silk,  and  scarlet ; and  all  thyine  wood,  and  every  vessel  of 
ivory,  and  every  vessel  made  of  most  precious  wood,  and  of  brass, 
and  iron,  and  marble ; and  cinnamon,  and  spice,  and  incense,  and 
ointment,  and  frankincense,  and  wine,  and  oil,  and  fine  flour,  and 
wheat,  and  cattle,  and  sheep ; and  merchandise  of  horses  and 
chariots  and  slaves ; and  souls  of  men.  And  the  fruits  that  thy 
soul  desired  are  departed  from  thee,  and  all  things  which  were 
dainty  and  sumptuous  are  perished  from  thee,  and  men  shall  find 
them  no  more  at  all.” 1 

Heathen  Rome  lived  a good  while  after  this  prediction,  but 
the  causes  of  decay  were  already  at  work  in  the  first  century. 
The  immense  extension  and  outward  prosperity  brought  with 
it  a diminution  of  those  domestic  and  civil  virtues  which  at 
first  so  highly  distinguished  the  Romans  above  the  Greeks. 
The  race  of  patriots  and  deliverers,  who  came  from  their 
ploughs  to  the  public  service,  and  humbly  returned  again  to 
the  plough  or  the  kitchen,  was  extinct.  Their  worship  of  the 
gods,  which  was  the  root  of  their  virtue,  had  sunk  to  mere 
form,  running  either  into  the  most  absurd  superstitions,  or 
giving  place  to  unbelief,  till  the  very  priests  laughed  each  other 
in  the  face  when  they  met  in  the  street.  Not  unfrequently  we 
find  unbelief  and  superstition  united  in  the  same  persons,  ac- 
cording to  the  maxim  that  all  extremes  touch  each  other.  Man 
must  believe  something,  and  worship  either  God  or  the  devil.’ 

'Rev.  18:  11-14. 

* “ Unbelief  and  superstition,  different  hues  of  the  same  historical  phe- 
nomenon, went  in  the  Roman  world  of  that  day  hand  in  hand,  and  there  was 
no  lack  of  individuals  who  in  themselves  combined  both — who  denied  the 
gods  with  Epicurus,  and  yet  prayed  and  sacrificed  before  every  shrine." 


§ 12.  GRECIAN  LITERATURE,  AND  TIIE  ROMAN  EMPIRE.  83 


Magicians  and  necromancers  abounded,  and  were  liberally  pat- 
ronized. The  ancient  simplicity  and  contentment  were  ex- 
changed for  boundless  avarice  and  prodigality.  Morality  and 
chastity,  so  beautifully  symbolized  in  the  household  ministry  of 
the  virgin  Yesta,  yielded  to  vice  and  debauchery.  Amusement 
came  to  be  sought  in  barbarous  fights  of  beasts  and  gladiators, 
which  not  rarely  consumed  twenty  thousand  human  lives  in  a 
single  month.  The  lower  classes  had  lost  all  nobler  feeling, 
cared  for  nothing  but  ujpanem  et  circenses ,”  and  made  the 
proud  imperial  city  on  the  Tiber  a slave  of  slaves.  The  huge 
empire  of  Tiberius  and  of  Nero  was  but  a giant  body  without  a 
soul,  going,  with  steps  slow  but  sure,  to  final  dissolution.  Some 
of  the  emperors  were  fiendish  tyrants  and  monsters  of  iniquity ; 
and  yet  they  were  enthroned  among  the  gods  by  a vote  of  the 
Senate,  and  altars  and  temples  were  erected  for  their  worship. 
This  characteristic  custom  began  with  Caesar,  who  even  during 
his  lifetime  was  honored  as  “Divus  Julius”  for  his  brilliant 
victories,  although  they  cost  more  than  a million  of  lives  slain 
and  another  million  made  captives  and  slaves.1  The  dark  pic- 
ture which  St.  Paul,  in  addressing  the  Romans,  draws  of  the 
heathenism  of  his  day,  is  fully  sustained  by  Seneca,  Tacitus, 

Theod.  Mommsen,  History  of  Rome , transl.  by  Dickson,  Lond.  1867,  vol.  iv. 
p.  560. 

1 “ In  the  excess  of  their  adoration,  the  Roman  Senate  desired  even  to  place 
his  image  in  the  Temple  of  Quirinus  himself,  with  an  inscription  to  him  as 
&ebs  aytK-qroi,  the  invincible  God.  Golden  chairs,  gilt  chariots,  triumphal 
robes,  were  piled  one  upon  another,  with  laurelled  fasces  and  laurelled 
wreaths.  His  birthday  was  made  a perpetual  holiday,  and  the  month  Quinc- 
tilis  was  renamed,  in  honor  of  him,  July.  A temple  to  Concord  was  to  be 
erected  in  commemoration  of  his  clemency.  His  person  was  declared  sacred, 
and  to  injure  him  by  word  or  deed  was  to  be  counted  sacrilege.  The  Fortune 
of  Caesar  was  introduced  into  the  constitutional  oath,  and  the  Senate  took  a 
solemn  pledge  to  maintain  his  acts  inviolate.  Finally,  they  arrived  at  a con- 
clusion that  he  was  not  a man  at  all ; no  longer  Caius  Julius,  but  Divus 
Julius,  a God  or  the  Son  of  God.  A temple  was  to  be  built  to  Caesar  as  an- 
other Quirinus,  and  Antony  was  to  be  his  priest.”  J.  A.  Froude,  Caesar 
(1879),  Ch.  XXVI.  p.  491.  The  insincerity  of  these  adulations  shortly  before 
the  senatorial  conspiracy  makes  them  all  the  worse.  “ One  obsequious  sen- 
ator proposed  that  every  woman  in  Rome  should  be  at  the  disposition  of 
Caesar.”  lbid.}  p 492. 


84 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Juvenal,  Persius,  and  other  heathen  writers  of  that  age,  and 
shows  the  absolute  need  of  redemption.  “The  world,”  says 
Seneca,  in  a famous  passage,  “ is  full  of  crimes  and  vices.  More 
are  committed  than  can  be  cured  by  force.  There  is  an  im- 
mense struggle  for  iniquity.  Crimes  are  no  longer  hidden,  but 
open  before  the  eyes.  Innocence  is  not  only  rare,  but  no- 
where.” 1 

Thus  far  the  negative.  On  the  other  hand,  the  universal 
empire  of  Rome  was  a positive  groundwork  for  the  universal 
empire  of  the  gospel.  It  served  as  a crucible,  in  which  all 
contradictory  and  irreconcilable  peculiarities  of  the  ancient 
nations  and  religions  were  dissolved  into  the  chaos  of  a new 
creation.  The  Roman  legions  razed  the  partition- walls  among 
the  ancient  nations,  brought  the  extremes  of  the  civilized  world 
together  in  free  intercourse,  and  united  north  and  south  and 
east  and  west  in  the  bonds  of  a common  language  and  culture, 
of  common  laws  and  customs.  Thus  they  evidently,  though 
unconsciously,  opened  the  way  for  the  rapid  and  general  spread 
of  that  religion  which  unites  all  nations  in  one  family  of  God 
by  the  spiritual  bond  of  faith  and  love. 

The  idea  of  a common  humanity,  which  underlies  all  the 
distinctions  of  race,  society  and  education,  began  to  dawn 
in  the  heathen  mind,  and  found  expression  in  the  famous 
line  of  Terentius,  which  was  received  with  applause  in  the 
theatre : 

“ Homo  sum : Tinmani  niliil  a me  alienum  puto .” 

This  spirit  of  humanity  breathes  in  Cicero  and  Virgil.  Hence 
the  veneration  paid  to  the  poet  of  the  HCneid  by  the  fathers 
and  throughout  the  middle  ages.  Augustine  calls  him  the 
noblest  of  poets,  and  Dante,  “the  glory  and  light  of  other 
poets,”  and  “ his  master,”  who  guided  him  through  the  regions 
of  hell  and  purgatory  to  the  very  gates  of  Paradise.  It  was 
believed  that  in  his  fourth  Eclogue  he  had  prophesied  the  advent 
of  Christ.  This  interpretation  is  erroneous ; but  “ there  is  in 


1 He  Ira , II.  8. 


§ 13.  JUDAISM  AND  HEATHENISM  IN  CONTACT.  85 

Virgil,”  says  an  accomplished  scholar,1  “ a vein  of  thought  and 
sentiment  more  devout,  more  humane,  more  akin  to  the  Chris- 
tian, than  is  to  be  found  in  any  other  ancient  poet,  whether 
Greek  or  Homan,  lie  was  a spirit  prepared  and  waiting, 
though  he  knew  it  not,  for  some  better  thing  to  be  revealed.” 
The  civil  laws  and  institutions,  also,  and  the  great  adminis- 
trative wisdom  of  Home  did  much  for  the  outward  organization 
of  the  Christian  church.  As  the  Greek  church  rose  on  the 
basis  of  the  Grecian  nationality,  so  the  Latin  church  rose  on 
that  of  ancient  Home,  and  reproduced  in  higher  forms  both  its 
virtues  and  its  defects.  Homan  Catholicism  is  pagan  Home 
baptized,  a Christian  reproduction  of  the  universal  empire 
seated  of  old  in  the  city  of  the  seven  hills. 


§ 13.  Judaism  a'ud  Heathenism  in  Contact 

The  Homan  empire,  though  directly  establishing  no  more 
than  an  outward  political  union,  still  promoted  indirectly  a 
mutual  intellectual  and  moral  approach  of  the  hostile  religions 
of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  who  were  to  be  reconciled  in  one 
divine  brotherhood  by  the  supernatural  power  of  the  cross  of 
Christ. 

1.  The  Jews,  since  the  Babylonish  captivity,  had  been  scat- 
tered over  all  the  world.  They  were  as  ubiquitous  in  the 
Homan  empire  in  the  first  century  as  they  are  now  throughout  t 
Christendom.  According  to  Josephus  and  Strabo,  there  was  no 
country  where  they  did  not  make  up  a part  of  the  population.2 

1 Principal  Shairp,  in  an  article  on  “ Virgil  as  a Precursor  of  Christianity,” 
in  the  “ Princeton  Review”  for  Sept.,  1879,  pp.  403-420.  Comp,  the  learned 
essay  of  Professor  Piper,  in  Berlin,  on  “Virgil  als  Theologe  und  Prophet,”  in 
his  “ Evang.  Kalender  ” for  18G2. 

2 Jos.,  Bell.  Jud.,  VII.  c.  3,  § 3 : “As  the  Jewish  nation  is  widely  dispersed 
over  all  the  habitable  earth,”  etc.  Antiqu .,  XIV.  7,  2 : “ Let  no  one  wonder 
that  there  was  so  much  wealth  in  our  temple,  since  all  the  Jews  throughout 
the  habitable  earth,  and  those  that  worship  God,  nay,  even  those  of  Asia 
and  Europe,  sent  their  contributions  to  it.”  Then,  quoting  from  Strabo,  he 
says  : “ These  Jews  are  already  gotten  into  all  cities,  and  it  is  hard  to  find  a 


86 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Among  the  witnesses  of  the  miracle  of  Pentecost  were  “ Jews 
from  every  nation  under  heaven  . . . Parthians  and  Medes 
and  Elamites,  and  the  dwellers  of  Mesopotamia,  in  Judaea  and 
Cappadocia,  in  Pontus  and  Asia,  in  Phrygia  and  Pampliylia,  in 
Egypt  and  the  parts  of  Libya  about  Cyrene,  and  sojourners 
from  Koine,  both  Jews  and  proselytes,  Cretans  and  Arabians.”  1 
In  spite  of  the  antipathy  of  the  Gentiles,  they  had,  by  talent 
and  industry,  risen  to  wealth,  influence,  and  every  privilege, 
and  had  built  their  synagogues  in  all  the  commercial  cities  of 
the  Koman  empire.  Pompey  brought  a considerable  number 
of  Jewish  captives  from  Jerusalem  to  the  capital  (b.c.  63),  and 
settled  them  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Tiber  (Trastevere).  By 
establishing  this  community  he  furnished,  without  knowing  it, 
the  chief  material  for  the  Koman  church.  Julius  Caesar  was 
the  great  protector  of  the  Jews ; and  they  showed  their  grati- 
tude by  collecting  for  many  nights  to  lament  his  death  on  the 
forum  where  his  murdered  body  was  burnt  on  a funeral  pile.2 
He  granted  them  the  liberty  of  public  worship,  and  thus 
gave  them  a legal  status  as  a religious  society.  Augustus 
confirmed  these  privileges.  Under  his  reign  they  were  num- 
bered already  by  thousands  in  the  city.  A reaction  followed ; 
Tiberius  and  Claudius  expelled  them  from  Kome;  but  they 
soon  returned,  and  succeeded  in  securing  the  free  exercise  of 
their  rites  and  customs.  The  frequent  satirical  allusions  to  them 
prove  their  influence  as  well  as  the  aversion  and  contempt  in 
which  they  were  held  by  the  Komans.  Their  petitions  reached 
the  ear  of  Nero  through  his  wife  Poppaea,  who  seems  to  have 
inclined  to  their  faith  ; and  Josephus,  their  most  distinguished 
scholar,  enjoyed  the  favor  of  three  emperors — Vespasian,  Titus, 
and  Domitian.  In  the  language  of  Seneca  (as  quoted  by  Augus- 
tin) “the  conquered  Jews  gave  laws  to  their  Koman  conquerors.” 

place  in  the  habitable  earth  that  has  not  admitted  this  tribe  of  men,  and  is 
not  possessed  by  it ; and  it  has  come  to  pass  that  Egypt  and  Cyrene  . . . 

and  a great  number  of  other  nations  imitate  their  way  of  living,  and  maintain 
great  bodies  of  these  Jews  in  a peculiar  manner,  and  grow  up  to  greater  pros- 
perity  with  them,  and  make  use  also  of  the  same  laws  with  that  nation.’* 

1 Acts  2 : 5,  9-11.  * Sueton.,  o.  84. 


§ 13.  JUDAISM  AND  HEATHENISM  IN  CONTACT.  87 


By  this  dispersion  of  the  Jews  the  seeds  of  the  knowledge  of 
the  true  God  and  the  Messianic  hope  were  sown  in  the  field  of 
the  idolatrous  world.  The  Old  Testament  Scriptures  were 
translated  into  Greek  two  centuries  before  Christ,  and  were 
read  and  expounded  in  the  public  worship  of  God,  which  was 
open  to  all.  Every  synagogue  was  a mission-station  of  mono- 
theism, and  furnished  the  apostles  an  admirable  place  and  a 
natural  introduction  for  their  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the 
fulfiller  of  the  law  and  the  prophets. 

Then,  as  the  heathen  religions  had  been  hopelessly  under- 
mined by  skeptical  philosophy  and  popular  infidelity,  many 
earnest  Gentiles,  especially  multitudes  of  women,  came  over  to 
Judaism  either  wholly  or  in  part.  The  thorough  converts, 
called  “ proselytes  of  righteousness,” 1 were  commonly  still  more 
bigoted  and  fanatical  than  the  native  Jew's.  The  half -con  verts, 
“ proselytes  of  the  gate  ” 2 or  “ fearers  of  God,” 3 who  adopted 
only  the  monotheism,  the  principal  moral  laws,  and  the  Messi- 
anic hopes  of  the  Jews,  without  being  circumcised,  appear  in 
the  New  Testament  as  the  most  susceptible  hearers  of  the  gos- 
pel, and  formed  the  nucleus  of  many  of  the  first  Christian 
churches.  Of  this  class  were  the  centurion  of  Capernaum, 
Cornelius  of  Caesarea,  Lydia  of  Philippi,  Timothy,  and  many 
other  prominent  disciples. 

2.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Graeco-Homan  heathenism,  through 
its  language,  philosophy,  and  literature,  exerted  no  inconsider- 
able influence  to  soften  the  fanatical  bigotry  of  the  higher  and 
more  cultivated  classes  of  the  Jews.  Generally  the  Jews  of  the 
dispersion,  who  spoke  the  Greek  language — the  “ Hellenists,”  as 
they  were  called — were  much  more  liberal  than  the  proper  “ He- 
brews,” or  Palestinian  Jews,  who  kept  their  mother  tongue. 
This  is  evident  in  the  Gentile  missionaries,  Barnabas  of  Cyprus 
and  Paul  of  Tarsus,  and  in  the  whole  church  of  Antioch,  in  con- 
trast with  that  at  Jerusalem.  The  Hellenistic  form  of  Chris- 
tianity was  the  natural  bridge  to  the  Gentile. 

1 pTO?  **13.  9 Ex.  20: 10;  Deut.  5: 14. 

3 Ol  fbac jSeTy,  ol  <pof3oufxcvoi  rbv  freSv,  Acts  10  : 2 ; 13  : 16,  etc.,  and  Josephus. 


88 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


The  most  remarkable  example  of  a transitional,  though  very 
fantastic  and  Gnostic-like  combination  of  Jewish  and  heathen 
elements  meets  us  in  the  educated  circles  of  the  Egyptian  me- 
tropolis, Alexandria,  and  in  the  system  of  Piiilo,  who  was  born 
about  b.c.  20,  and  lived  till  after  a.d.  40,  though  he  never 
came  in  contact  with  Christ  or  the  apostles.  This  Jewish 
divine  sought  to  harmonize  the  religion  of  Moses  with  the 
philosophy  of  Plato  by  the  help  of  an  ingenious  but  arbitrary 
allegorical  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament ; and  from  the 
books  of  Proverbs  and  of  Wisdom  he  deduced  a doctrine  of  the 
Logos  so  strikingly  like  that  of  John’s  Gospel,  that  many  ex- 
positors think  it  necessary  to  impute  to  the  apostle  an  ac- 
quaintance with  the  writings,  or  at  least  with  the  terminology 
of  Philo.  But  Philo’s  speculation  is  to  the  apostle’s  “ Word 
made  flesh  ” as  a shadow  to  the  body,  or  a dream  to  the  reality. 
He  leaves  no  room  for  an  incarnation,  but  the  coincidence  of 
his  speculation  with  the  great  fact  is  very  remarkable.1 

The  Tiierapeutas,  or  Worshippers,  a mystic  and  ascetic  sect 
in  Egypt,  akin  to  the  Essenes  in  Judsea,  carried  this  Platonic 
Judaism  into  practical  life;  but  were,  of  course,  equally  unsuc- 
cessful in  uniting  the  two  religions  in  a vital  and  permanent 
way.  Such  a union  could  only  be  effected  by  a new  religion 
revealed  from  Ileaven.2 3 * * 

Quite  independent  of  the  philosophical  Judaism  of  Alexan- 
dria were  the  Samaritans,  a mixed  race,  which  also  combined, 
though  in  a different  way,  the  elements  of  Jewish  and  Gentile 
religion.8  They  date  from  the  period  of  the  exile.  They  held 

1 The  system  of  Philo  has  been  very  thoroughly  investigated,  both  inde- 
pendently, and  in  connection  with  John’s  Logos-doctrine,  by  Grossmann 
(1829),  Gfrorer  (1831),  Dahne  (1834),  Lucke,  Baur,  Zeller,  Dorner,  Ueberweg, 
Ewald,  J.  G.  Muller  {Die  Messian.  Erwartungen  des  Jud.cn  Philo , Basel, 
1870),  Keim,  Lipsius,  Hausrath,  Schurer,  etc.  See  the  literature  in  Schiirer, 
jV.  T.  Zeitgexch. , p.  048. 

8 P.  E.  Lucius : Die  Therapeuten  und  Hire  Stellung  in  der  Oeschichte  der 
Askese.  Strassburg,  1880. 

3 A remnant  of  the  Samaritans  (about  140  souls)  still  live  in  Nablous.  the 

ancient  Shechem,  occupy  a special  quarter,  have  a synagogue  of  their  own, 

with  a very  ancient  copy  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  celebrate  annually  on  the 


§ 13.  JUDAISM  AND  HEATHENISM  IN  CONTACT.  89 


to  the  Pentateuch,  to  circumcision,  and  to  carnal  Messianic 
hopes ; but  they  had  a temple  of  their  own  on  Mount  Gerizim, 
and  mortally  hated  the  proper  Jews.  Among  these  Chris- 
tianity, as  would  appear  from  the  interview  of  Jesus  with  the 
woman  of  Samaria,1  and  the  preaching  of  Philip,2  found  ready 
access,  but,  as  among  the  Essenes  and  Therapeutse,  fell  easily 
into  a heretical  form.  Simon  Magus,  for  example,  and  some 
other  Samaritan  arcli-lieretics,  are  represented  by  the  early 
Christian  writers  as  the  principal  originators  of  Gnosticism. 

3.  Thus  was  the  way  for  Christianity  prepared  on  every 
side,  positively  and  negatively,  directly  and  indirectly,  in  theory 
and  in  practice,  by  truth  and  by  error,  by  false  belief  and  by 
unbelief — those  hostile  brothers,  which  yet  cannot  live  apart — 
by  Jewish  religion,  by  Grecian  culture,  and  by  Poman  con- 
quest ; by  the  vainly  attempted  amalgamation  of  Jewish  and 
heathen  thought,  by  the  exposed  impotence  of  natural  civiliza- 
tion, philosophy,  art,  and  political  power,  by  the  decay  of  the 
old  religions,  by  the  universal  distraction  and  hopeless  misery 
of  the  age,  and  by  the  yearnings  of  all  earnest  and  noble  souls 
for  the  religion  of  salvation. 

“In  the  fulness  of  the  time,”  when  the  fairest  flowers  of 
science  and  art  had  withered,  and  the  world  was  on  the  verge 
of  despair,  the  Virgin’s  Son  was  born  to  heal  the  infirmities  of 
mankind.  Christ  entered  a dying  world  as  the  author  of  a 
new  and  imperishable  life. 

top  of  Mount  Gerizim  the  Jewish  Passover,  Pentecost,  and  Feast  of  Taberna- 
cles. It  is  the  only  spot  on  earth  where  the  paschal  sacrifice  is  perpetuated 
according  to  the  Mosaic  prescription  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Exodus.  See 
Schaff,  Through  Bible  Lands  (N.  York  and  Lond.  1878),  pp.  314  sqq.  ; and 
Hausrath,  l.c.  I.  17  sqq. 

1 John  4. 


* Acts  8. 


90 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


CHAPTER  H. 

JESUS  CHRIST. 

§ 14.  Sources  and  Literature . 

A.  Sources. 

Christ  himself  wrote  nothing,  but  furnished  endless  material  for  books 
and  songs  of  gratitude  and  praise.  The  living  Church  of  the  re- 
deemed is  his  book.  He  founded  a religion  of  the  living  spirit,  not 
of  a written  code,  like  the  Mosaic  law.  (His  letter  to  King  Abgarus 
of  Edessa,  in  Euseb.,  Hist.  EccL,  I.  13,  is  a worthless  fabrication.) 
Yet  his  words  and  deeds  are  recorded  by  as  honest  and  reliable  wit- 
nesses as  ever  put  pen  to  paper. 

I.  Authentic  Christian  Sources. 

(1)  The  four  Canonic  An  Gospels.  Whatever  their  origin  and  date,  they 

exhibit  essentially  the  same  divine-human  life  and  character  of 
Christ,  which  stands  out  in  sharp  contrast  with  the  fictitious  Christ 
of  the  Apocryphal  Gospels,  and  cannot  possibly  have  been  invented, 
least  of  all  by  illiterate  Galileans.  They  would  never  have  thought 
of  writing  books  without  the  inspiration  of  their  Master. 

(2)  The  Acts  of  Luke,  the  Apostolic  Epistles,  and  the  Apocalypse  of 

John.  They  presuppose,  independently  of  the  written  Gospels, 
the  main  facts  of  the  gospel-history,  especially  the  crucifixion  and 
the  resurrection,  and  abound  in  allusions  to  these  facts.  Four  of 
the  Pauline  Epistles  (Romans,  1 and  2 Corinthians,  Galatians)  are 
admitted  as  genuine  by  the  most  extreme  of  liberal  critics  (Baur 
and  the  Tiibingen  School),  and  from  them  alone  a great  part  of  the 
life  of  Christ  might  be  reconstructed.  (See  the  admissions  of  Keim, 
Gesch.  Jesu  v.  Naz .,  I.  35  sqq.) 

II.  The  Apocryphal  Gospels  are  very  numerous  (about  50),  some  of 
them  only  known  by  name,  others  in  fragments,  and  date  from  the 
second  and  later  centuries.  They  are  partly  heretical  (Gnostic  and 
Ebionite)  perversions  or  mutilations  of  the  real  history,  partly  inno- 
cent compositions  of  fancy,  or  religious  novels  intended  to  link  to- 
gether the  disconnected  periods  of  Christ’s  biography,  to  satisfy  the 
curiosity  concerning  his  relations,  his  childhood,  his  last  days,  and 
to  promote  the  glorification  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  They  may  be 


§ 14.  SOURCES  AND  LITERATURE. 


91 


divided  into  four  classes : (1)  Heretical  Gospels  (as  the  Evangelium 
Cerinthi , Ev.  Marcionis , Ev.  juaae  Ischariotae , Ev.  secundum  He- 
braeos,  etc.)  ; (2)  Gospels  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  and  the  birth  of 
Christ  ( Protevangelium  Jacobi , Evang.  Pseudo -Mathaei  sive  liber  de 
Oi'tu  Beatae  Mariae  et  Infantia  Salvatoi'is,  Evang.  de  Nativilate 
Manae,  Historia  Josephi  Fabri  lignarii , etc.);  (3)  Gospels  of  the 
childhood  of  Jesus  from  the  flight  to  Egypt  till  his  eighth  or  twelfth 
year  [Evang.  Thomae,  of  Gnostic  origin,  Evang.  Infantiae  Arabicum , 
etc.)  ; (4)  Gospels  of  the  passion  and  the  mysterious  triduum  in 
Hades  [Evang.  Nicodemi,  including  the  Gesta  or  Acta  Pilati  and  the 
Descensus  ad  Infei'os , Epistola  Pilati , a report  of  Christ’s  passion  to 
the  emperor  Tiberius,  Paradosis  Pilati , Epistolae  Herodis  ad  Pila- 
tum  and  Pilati  ad  Herodem , Responsum  Tibei'ii  ad  P ilatum , Narratio 
Josephi  Arimathiensis , etc.).  It  is  quite  probable  that  Pilate  sent  an 
account  of  the  trial  and  crucifixion  of  Jesus  to  his  master  in  Rome 
(as  Justin  Martyr  and  Tertullian  confidentially  assert),  but  the  vari- 
ous documents  bearing  his  name  are  obviously  spurious,  including 
the  one  recently  published  by  Geo.  Sluter  ( The  Acta  Pilati , Shelby- 
ville,  Ind.  1879),  who  professes  to  give  a translation  from  the  sup- 
posed authentic  Latin  copy  in  the  Vatican  Library. 

These  apocryphal  productions  have  no  historical,  but  consider- 
able apologetic  value ; for  they  furnish  by  their  contrast  with  the  gen- 
uine Gospels  a very  strong  negative  testimony  to  the  historical  truth- 
fulness of  the  Evangelists,  as  a shadow  presupposes  the  light,  a 
counterfeit  the  real  coin,  and  a caricature  the  original  picture.  They 
have  contributed  largely  to  mediaeval  art  (e.  g.,  the  ox  and  the  ass  in 
the  history  of  the  nativity),  and  to  the  traditional  Mariology  and 
Mariolatry  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  churches,  and  have  supplied 
Mohammed  with  his  scanty  knowledge  of  Jesus  and  Mary. 

See  the  collections  of  the  apocryphal  Gospels  by  Fabricius  [Codex  Apoc- 
ryphus  Novi  Testamenti , Hamburg,  1703,  2d  ed.  1719),  Thllo  [Cod. 
Apocr.  N.  Ti.,  Lips.  1832),  Tischendorf  [Evangelia  Apoaypha , Lips. 
1853),  W.  Wright  [Contributions  to  the  Apocr.  Lit.  of  the  N.  T.  from 
Syrian  MSS.  in  the  BHtish  Museum,  Lond.  1865),  B.  Harris  Cow- 
per  ( The  Apociyphal  Gospels,  translated,  London,  1867),  and  Alex. 
Walker  (Engl,  transl.  in  Roberts  & Donaldson’s  “ Amte-Nicene 
Library,”  vol.  xvi.,  Edinb.  1870;  vol.  viii.  of  Am.  ed.,  N.  Y.  1886). 

Comp,  the  dissertations  of  Tischendorf  : De  Evang.  apocr.  origine  et  usu 
(Hagae,  1851),  and  Pilati  circa  Christum  judicio  quid  lucis  offei'atur 
ex  Adis  Pilati  (Lips.  1855).  Rud.  Hofmann  : Das  Leben  Jesu  nach 
den  Apokryphen  (Leipz.  1851),  and  his  art.,  ApoTcryphen  des  N.  T., 
in  Herzog  & Plitt,  “R.  Encykl.,”  vol.  i.  (1877),  p.  511.  G.  Brunet  : 
Les  evangiles  apocryphes , Paris,  1863.  Michel  Nicolas  : Etudes  sur 
les  evangiles  apocryphes,  Paris,  1866.  Lipsius  : Die  Pilatus-Aden, 
Kiel,  1871;  Die  edessenische  Abgar-Sage , 1880;  Gospels,  Apocr.,  in 
Smith  & Wace,  I.  700  sqq. ; Holtzmann  : Einl.  in's  N.  T.f  pp.  534-’54. 


92 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


III.  Jewish  Sources. 

The  O.  Test.  Scriptures  are,  in  type  and  prophecy,  a preparatory  history 
of  Christ,  and  become  fully  intelligible  only  in  Him  who  came  “ to 
fulfill  the  law  and  the  prophets.” 

The  Apocryphal  and  post-Cliristian  Jewish  writings  give  us  a full  view 
of  the  outward  framework  of  society  and  religion  in  which  the  life 
of  Christ  moved,  and  in  this  way  they  illustrate  and  confirm  the 
Gospel  accounts. 

IV.  The  famous  testimony  of  the  Jewish  historian  Josephus  (d.  after 
a.d.  103)  deserves  special  consideration.  In  his  Antiqu.  Jud .,  1. 
xviii.  cap.  3,  \ 3,  he  gives  the  following  striking  summary  of  the  life 
of  Jesus : 

“Now  there  rose  about  this  time  Jesus,  a wise  man,  if  it  be  lawful 
to  call  him  a man ; for  he  was  a doer  of  wonderful  works  (mipabogup 
tpycov  noir}Tys ),  a teacher  of  such  men  as  receive  the  truth  with  glad- 
ness. He  carried  away  with  him  many  of  the  Jews  and  also  many  of 
the  Greeks.  He  was  the  Christ  (6  Xpiaros  ovtos  rjv).  And  after 
Pilate,  at  the  suggestion  of  the  principal  men  among  us,  had  con- 
demned him  to  tiie  cross,  his  first  adherents  did  not  forsake  him. 
For  he  appeared  to  them  alive  again  the  third  day  (i.fn’ivr]  yap  auTols 
TpiTTjv  €%t ov  rjpepav  Triikiv  £i»v)  ; the  divine  prophets  having  foretold 
these  and  ten  thousand  other  wonderful  things  (uAAa  pvpla  Zavpaaia) 
concerning  him.  And  the  tribe  of  those  called  Christians,  after  him, 
is  not  extinct  to  this  day.” 

This  testimony  is  first  quoted  by  Eusebius,  twice,  without  a mis- 
giving (Hist.  Eccl.,  I.  11 ; and  Demonstr.  Evang .,  III.  5),  and  was 
considered  genuine  down  to  the  16th  century,  but  has  been  disputed 
ever  since.  We  have  added  the  most  doubtful  words  in  Greek. 

The  following  are  the  arguments  for  the  genuineness  : 

(1)  The  testimony  is  found  in  all  the  MSS.  of  Josephus. 

But  these  MSS.  were  written  by  Christians,  and  we  have  none 
older  than  from  the  11th  century. 

(2)  It  agrees  with  the  style  of  Josephus. 

(3)  It  is  extremely  improbable  that  Josephus,  in  writing  a history 
of  the  Jews  coming  down  to  a.d.  66,  should  have  ignored  Jesus; 
all  the  more  since  he  makes  favorable  mention  of  John  the  Baptist 
(Antiqu.,  XVHI.  5,  2),  and  of  the  martyrdom  of  James  “the  Brother 
of  Jesus  called  the  Christ”  (Antiqu.,  XX.  9,  1 : tov  nfifA^di/  ’I rja-ov  tov 
A eyopevov  Xpiarov,  ’ld/«u/3o9  ovopa  avrio).  Both  passages  are  generally 
accepted  as  genuine,  unless  the  words  tov  Xey ope'pov  Xpiarov  should 
be  an  interpolation. 

Against  this  may  be  said  that  Josephus  may  have  had  prudential 
reasons  for  ignoring  Christianity  altogether. 

Arguments  against  the  genuineness  : 

(1)  The  passage  interrupts  the  connection. 


§ 14.  SOURCES  AND  LITERATURE. 


93 


But  not  necessarily.  Josephus  had  just  recorded  a calamity  which 
befell  the  Jews  under  Pontius  Pilate,  in  consequence  of  a sedition, 
and  he  may  have  regarded  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus  as  an  additional 
calamity.  He  then  goes  on  ($  4 and  5)  to  record  another  calamity, 
the  expulsion  of  the  Jews  from  Rome  under  Tiberius. 

(2)  It  betrays  a Christian,  and  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the 
known  profession  of  Josephus  as  a Jewish  priest  of  the  sect  of  the 
Pharisees.  We  would  rather  expect  him  to  have  represented  Jesu3 
as  an  impostor,  or  as  an  enthusiast. 

But  it  may  be  urged,  on  the  other  hand,  that  Josephus,  with  all 
his  great  literary  merits,  is  also  known  as  a vain  and  utterly  un- 
principled man,  as  a renegade  and  sycophant  who  glorified  and 
betrayed  his  nation,  who  served  as  a Jewish  general  in  the  revolt 
against  Rome,  and  then,  after  having  been  taken  prisoner,  flattered 
the  Roman  conquerors,  by  whom  he  was  richly  rewarded.  History 
furnishes  many  examples  of  similar  inconsistencies.  Remember 
Pontius  Pilate  who  regarded  Christ  as  innocent,  and  yet  condemned 
him  to  death,  the  striking  testimonies  of  Rousseau  and  Napoleon  I. 
to  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  also  the  concessions  of  Renan,  which 
contradict  his  position. 

(3)  It  is  strange  that  the  testimony  should  not  have  been  quoted 
by  such  men  as  Justin  Martyr,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Tertullian,  or 
any  other  writer  before  Eusebius  (d.  340),  especially  by  Origen,  who 
expressly  refers  to  the  passages  of  Josephus  on  John  the  Baptist 
and  James  ( Contra  Cels.,  I.  35,  47).  Even  Chrysostom  (d.  407),  who 
repeatedly  mentions  Josephus,  seems  to  have  been  ignorant  of  this 
testimony. 

In  view  of  these  conflicting  reasons,  there  are  different  opinions  : 

(1)  The  passage  is  entirely  genuine.  This  old  view  is  defended  by 
Hauteville,  Oberthur,  Bretschneider,  Bohmert,  Whiston,  Schoedel 
(1840),  Bottger  ( Das  Zeugniss  des  Jos.,  Dresden,  1863). 

(2)  It  is  wholly  interpolated  by  a Christian  hand.  Bekker  (in  his 
ed.  of  Jos.,  1855),  Hase  (1865  and  1876),  Keim  (,1867),  Schiirer  (1874). 

(3)  It  is  partly  genuine,  partly  interpolated.  Josephus  probably 
wrote  Xpio-Tos  our  of  Aiy  ero  (as  in  the  passage  on  James),  but  not  rjv, 
and  all  other  Christian  sentences  were  added  by  a transcriber  before 
Eusebius,  for  apologetic  purposes.  So  Paulus,  Heinichen,  Gieseler 
(I.  $ 24,  p.  81,  4th  Germ,  ed.),  Weizsacker,  Renan,  Farrar.  In  the 
introduction  to  his  Vie  de  Jesus  (p.  xii.),  Renan  says:  “ Je  crois  le 
passage  sur  Jesus  authentique.  II  est  parfaitement  dans  le  gout  de 
Joseph , et  si  cet  historien  a fait  mention  de  Jesus , c’est  hien  comme  cela 
qu'il  a du  en  parler.  On  sent  seulement  qu'une  main  chretienne  a 
retouclie  le  morceau,  y a ajoute  quelques  mots  sans  lesquels  il  eut  ete 
presque  blasphematoire,  a peut-etre  retranche  ou  modifie  quelques  ex* 
pressions.” 


94 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


(4)  It  is  radically  changed  from  a Jewish  calumny  into  its  present 
Christian  form.  Josephus  originally  described  Jesus  as  a pseudo- 
Messiah,  a magician,  and  seducer  of  the  people,  who  was  iustly  cru- 
cified. So  Paret  and  Ewald  ( Gesch . Christies',  p.  183,  3d  ed.). 

It  is  difficult  to  resist  the  conclusion  that  Josephus  must  have 
taken  some  notice  of  the  greatest  event  in  Jewish  history  (as  he 
certainly  did  of  John  the  Baptist  and  of  James),  but  that  his  state- 
ment— whether  non-committal  or  hostile — was  skilfully  enlarged  or 
altered  by  a Christian  hand,  and  thereby  deprived  of  its  historical 
value. 

In  other  respects,  the  writings  of  Josephus  contain,  indirectly, 
much  valuable  testimony  to  the  truth  of  the  gospel  history.  His 
History  of  the  Jewish  War  is  undesignedly  a striking  commentary  on 
the  predictions  of  our  Saviour  concerning  the  destruction  of  the  city 
and  the  temple  of  Jerusalem  ; the  great  distress  and  affliction  of  the 
Jewish  people  at  that  time ; the  famine,  pestilence,  and  earthquake  ; 
the  rise  of  false  prophets  and  impostors,  and  the  flight  of  his  disci- 
ples at  the  approach  of  these  calamities.  All  these  coincidences 
have  been  traced  out  in  full  by  the  learned  Dr.  Lardner,  in  his 
Collection  of  Ancient  Jewish  and  Heathen  Testimonies  to  the  Truth  of 
the  Christian  Religion , first  published  1764-67,  also  in  vol.  vi.  of  his 
Works,  ed.  by  Kippis,  Lond.  1838. 

V.  Heathen  testimonies  are  few  and  meagre.  This  fact  must  be  ac- 
counted for  by  the  mysterious  origin,  the  short  duration  and  the 
unworldly  character  of  the  life  and  work  of  Christ,  which  was  exclu- 
sively devoted  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  was  enacted  in  a re- 
tired country  and  among  a people  despised  by  the  proud  Greeks 
and  Romans. 

The  oldest  heathen  testimony  is  probably  in  the  Syriac  letter  of  Mara, 
a philosopher,  to  his  son  Serapion,  about  a.d.  74,  first  published  by 
Cureton,  in  Spicilegium  Syriacum , Lond.  1855,  and  translated  by 
Pratten  in  the  “ Ante-Nicene  Library,”  Edinb.  vol.  xxiv.  (1872),  104- 
114.  Here  Christ  is  compared  to  Socrates  and  Pythagoras,  and 
called  “the  wise  king  of  the  Jews,”  who  were  justly  punished  for 
murdering  him.  Ewald  ( l . c.  p.  180)  calls  this  testimony  “ very  re- 
markable for  its  simplicity  and  originality  as  well  as  its  antiquity.” 

Roman  authors  of  the  1st  and  2d  centuries  make  only  brief  and  incidental 
mention  of  Clirist  as  the  founder  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  of  his 
crucifixion  under  Pontius  Pilate,  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius.  Tacitus, 
Annales,  1.  xv.  cap.  44,  notices  him  in  connection  with  his  account 
of  the  conflagration  at  Rome  and  the  Neronian  persecution,  in  the 
words  : “ Auctor  nominis  ejus  \Christiani\  Christus  Tibeino  imperitante 
per  procuratorem  Pontium  Pilatum  supplicio  affectus  erat,"  and  calls 
the  Christian  religion  an  exitiabilis  superstitio.  Comp,  his  equally 
contemptuous  misrepresentation  of  the  Jews  in  Hist.,  v.  c.  3-5.  Other 


§ 14.  SOURCES  AND  LITERATURE. 


95 


notices  are  found  in  Suetonius  : Vita  Claudii , c.  25  ; Vita  Neronis , c. 
16 ; Plinius,  jun. : Epist.,  X.  97,  98 ; Lucian  : JJe  mm'te  Peregr .,  c. 
11 ; Lamprldius  : Vita  Alexandri  Severi,  c.  29,  43. 

The  heathen  opponents  of  Christianity,  Lucian,  Celsus,  Porphyry, 
Julian  the  Apostate,  etc.,  presuppose  the  principal  facts  of  the  gos- 
pel-history,  even  the  miracles  of  Jesus,  but  they  mostly  derive  them, 
like  the  Jewish  adversaries,  from  evil  spirits.  Comp,  my  book  on 
the  Person  of  Christ , Appendix,  and  Dr.  Nath.  Lardner’s  Credit 
bilily , and  Collection  of  Testimonies. 

B.  Biographical  and  Critical. 

The  numerous  Harmonies  of  the  Gospels  began  already  a.d.  170,  with 
Tatian’s  to  dia  T(cr<Tupit)v  (on  which  Ephraem  Syrus,  in  the  fourth 
century,  wrote  a commentary,  published  in  Latin  from  an  Armenian 
version  in  the  Armenian  convent  at  Venice,  1876).  The  first  biogra- 
phies of  Christ  were  ascetic  or  poetic,  and  partly  legendary.  See 
Hase,  Leben  Jesu,  $ 17-19.  The  critical  period  began  with  the  in- 
fidel and  infamous  attacks  of  Reimarus,  Bahrdt,  and  Venturini,  and 
the  noble  apologetic  works  of  Hess,  Herder,  and  Reinhard.  But  a 
still  greater  activity  was  stimulated  by  the  Leben  Jesu  of  Strauss,  1835, 
and  again  by  Renan’s  Vie  de  Jesus , 1863. 

J.  J.  Hess  (Antistes  at  Zurich,  d.  1828)  : Lebensgeschichte  Jesu.  Zurich, 
1774  ; 8th  ed.  1823,  3 vols.  Translated  into  Dutch  and  Danish.  He 
introduced  the  psychological  and  pragmatic  treatment. 

F.  V.  Reinhard  (d.  1812)  : Versuch  uber  den  Plan  Jesu.  Wittenberg, 
1781 ; 5th  ed.  by  Heubner , 1830.  English  translation,  N.  York,  1831. 
Reinhard  proved  the  originality  and  superiority  of  the  plan  of  Christ 
above  all  the  conceptions  of  previous  sages  and  benefactors  of  the 
race. 

J.  G.  Herder  (d.  1803)  : Vom  Erldser  der  Menschen  nacli  unsern  3 ersten 
Evang.  Riga,  1796.  The  same  : Von  Gottes  Sokn , dei*  Welt  Heiland , 
nach  Joh.  Evang.  Riga,  1797. 

H.  E.  G.  Paulus  (Prof,  in  Heidelberg,  d.  1851) : Leben  Jesu  als  Grund- 
lage  einer  reinen  Geschichte  des  Urcliristenthums.  Heidelb.  1828,  2 
vols.  Represents  the  “ vulgar  ” rationalism,  superseded  afterwards 
by  the  speculative  rationalism  of  Strauss. 

C.  Ullmann  (d.  1865)  : Die  Sundlosigkeit  Jesu.  Hamb.  1828 ; 7th  ed. 

1864.  Eng.  translation  (of  7th  ed.)  by  Sophia  Taylor , Edinb.  1870. 
The  best  work  on  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus.  Comp,  also  his  essay 
(against  Strauss),  Historisch  oder  Mythisch?  Gotha,  1838. 

Karl  Hase  : Das  Leben  Jesu.  Leipz.  1829 ; 5th  ed.  1865.  The  same  : 
Geschichte  Jesu.  Leipz.  1876. 

Schletermacher  (d.  1834)  : Vorlesungen  uber  das  Leben  Jesu , herausgeg.  von 
RuteniJc.  Berlin,  1864.  The  lectures  were  delivered  1832,  and  pub- 
lished from  imperfect  manuscripts.  “ Eine  Stimme  aus  vergangenen 


96 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Tagen.”  Comp,  the  critique  of  D.  F.  Strauss  in  Der  Christus  des 
Glaubens  und  der  Jesus  der  Geschichte.  Berlin,  1865. 

D.  F.  Strauss  (cl.  1874)  : Das  Leben  Jesu  kritisch  bearbeitet.  Tubingen, 
1835-36  ; 4tli  ed.  1840,  2 vols.  French  transl.  by  Emile  Littre ,•  Par. 
1856  (2d  ed.) ; Engl,  transl.  by  Miss  Marian  Evans  (better  known 
under  the  assumed  name  George  Eliot),  Loncl.  1846,  in  3 vols.,  re- 
publ.  in  N.  York,  1850.  The  same  : Das  Leben  Jesu  fiir  das  deut- 
sche  Volk  bearbeitet.  Leipz.  1864;  3d  ed.  1875.  In  both  these  fa- 
mous works  Strauss  represents  the  mythical  theory.  It  has  been 
popularized  in  the  third  volume  of  The  Bible  for  Learners  by  Oort 
and  Hooykaas,  Engl,  transl.,  Boston  ed.  1879. 

A.  Neander  (d.  1850)  : Das  Leben  Jesu.  Hamb.  1837 ; 5th  ed.  1852.  A 
positive  refutation  of  Strauss.  The  same  in  English  by  McClintock 
and  Blumenthal , N.  York,  1848. 

Joh.  Nep.  Sepp  (R.  C.)  : Das  Leben  Jesu  Ghristi.  Begensb.  1843  sqq. ; 
2d  ed.  1865,  6 vols.  Much  legendary  matter. 

Jordan  Bucher  (R.  C.)  : Das  Leben  Jesu  Ghristi.  Stuttgart,  1859. 

A.  Ebrard  : Wissenschaftliche  Kritik  der  evangelischen  Geschichte.  Erl. 
1842  ; 3d  ed.  1868.  Against  Strauss,  Bruno  Bauer,  etc.  Condensed 
English  translation,  Edinb.  1869. 

J.  P.  Lange  : Das  Leben  Jesu.  Heidelb.  1844- ’47,  3 parts  in  5 vols. 
Engl,  transl.  by  Marcus  Dods  and  others,  in  6 vols.,  Edinb.  1864. 
Rich  and  suggestive. 

J.  J.  van  Oosterzee  i Leven  van  Jesus.  First  publ.  in  1846-51,  3 vols. ; 
2d  ed.  1863-’65.  Comp,  his  Ghristologie,  Rotterdam,  1855-’61,  3 
vols.,  which  describe  the  Son  of  God  before  his  incarnation,  the  Son 
of  God  in  the  flesh,  and  the  Son  of  God  in  glory.  The  third  part  is 
translated  into  German  by  F.  Meyering : Das  Bild  Ghristi  nacli  der 
Schrift,  Hamburg,  1864. 

Chb.  Fr.  Schmid  : Biblische  Tlieologie  des  N.  Testaments.  Ed.  by  Weiz- 
sdcker.  Stuttgart,  1853  (3d  ed.  1854),  2 vols.  The  first  volume 
contains  the  life  and  doctrine  of  Christ.  The  English  translation 
by  G.  H.  Venables  (Edinb.  1870)  is  an  abridgment. 

H.  Ewadd  : Geschichte  Christus ’ und  seiner  Zeit.  Gott.  1854 ; 3d  ed. 
1867  (vol.  v.  of  his  Hist,  of  Israel).  Transl.  into  Engl,  by  0.  Glover , 
Cambridge,  1865. 

J.  Young  : The  Christ  of  History.  Lond.  and  N.  York,  1855.  5tli  ed.,  1868. 

P.  Lichtenstein  : Lebensgeschichte  Jesu  in  chronolog.  Uebersicht.  Erlan- 
gen, 1856. 

C.  J.  Riggenbach  : Vorlesungen  uber  das  Leben  Jesu.  Basel,  1858. 

M.  Baumgarten  : Die  Geschichte  Jesu  f ur  das  Verstdndn  iss  der  Gegenwart. 
Braunschweig,  1859. 

W.  F.  Gess  : Ghristi  Person  und  Werk  nach  Ghristi  Selbstzeugniss  und 
den  Zeugnissen  der  Apostel.  Basel,  1878,  in  several  parts.  (This  su- 
persedes his  first  work  on  the  same  subject,  publ.  1856.) 


§14.  SOURCES  AND  LITERATURE, 


97 


Horace  Bushnell  (d.  1878):  The  Character  of  Jesus:  forbidding  his 
possible  classification  with  men.  N.  York,  1861.  (A  reprint  of  the 
tenth  chapter  of  his  work  on  “ Nature  and  the  Supernatural,”  N. 
York,  1851).)  It  is  the  best  and  most  useful  product  of  his  genius. 

C.  J.  Ellicott  (Bishop)  : Historical  Lectures  on  the  Life  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  being  the  Hulsean  Led.  for  1859.  5th  ed.  Lond.  1869  ; republ- 
in  Boston,  1862. 

Samuel  J.  Andrews  : The  Life  of  our  Lord  upon  the  earth , considered  in 
its  historical,  chronological,  and  geographical  relations.  N.  York, 
1863 ; 4th  ed.  1879. 

Ernest  Ben  an  : Vie  de  Jesus.  Par.  1863,  and  often  publ.  since  (13th  ed. 
1867)  and  in  several  translations.  Strauss  popularized  and  Frenchi- 
fied. The  legendary  theory.  Eloquent,  fascinating,  superficial,  and 
contradictory. 

Daniel  Schenkel  : Has  Charahterbild  Jesu.  Wiesbaden,  1864 ; 4th  ed. 
revised  1873.  English  transl.  by  W.  IT.  Fairness.  Boston,  1867,  2 
vols.  By  the  same  : Das  Christusbild  der  Apostel  und  dei'  nach- 
apostolischen  Zeit.  Leipz.  1879.  See  also  his  art.,  Jesus  Christus , in 
Sclienkel’s  “ Bibel-Lexikon,”  III.  257  sqq.  Semi-mytliical  theory. 
Comp,  the  sharp  critique  of  Strauss  on  the  Characterbild:  Die  Hal- 
ben  und  die  Ganzen.  Berlin,  1865. 

Philip  Schaff  : The  Person  of  Christ : the  Perfection  of  his  Humanity 
viewed  as  a Proof  of  his  Divinity.  With  a Collection  of  Impartial 
Testimonies.  Boston  and  N.  York,  1865;  12th  ed.,  revised,  New 
York,  1882.  The  same  work  in  German,  Gotha,  1865 ; revised 
ed.,  N.  York  (Am.  Tract  Soc.),  1871 ; in  Dutch  by  Corded,  with  an 
introduction  by  J.  J.  van  Oosterzee.  Groningen,  1866 ; in  French 
by  Prof.  Sardinoux,  Toulouse,  1866,  and  in  other  languages.  By 
the  same  : Die  Cliristusfrage.  N.  York  and  Berlin,  1871. 

Ecce  Homo:  A Survey  of  the  Life  and  Work  of  Jesus  Christ.  [By  Prof. 
J.  R.  Seeley,  of  Cambridge.]  Lond.  1864,  and  several  editions  and 
translations.  It  gave  rise  also  to  works  on  Ecce  Deus,  Ecce  Deus 
Homo,  and  a number  of  reviews  and  essays  (one  by  Gladstone). 

Charles  Hardwick  (d.  1859)  : Christ  and  other  Mastei's.  Lond.,  4th  ed., 
1875.  (An  extension  of  the  work  of  Reinhard;  Christ  compared 
with  the  founders  of  the  Eastern  religions.) 

E.  H.  Plumptre  : Christ  and  Christendom.  Boyle  Lectures.  Lond.  1866. 

E.  de  Pressense  : Jesus  ChHst,  son  temps,  sa  vie,  son  oeuvre.  Paris,  1866. 

(Against  Renan.)  The  same  transl.  into  English  by  A nnie  Har wood 
(Lond.,  7th  ed.  1879),  and  into  German  by  Fabarius  (Halle,  1866). 

F.  Delitzsch  : Jesus  und  Hillel.  Erlangen,  1867  ; 3rd  ed.  revised,  1879. 

Theod.  Keim  (Prof,  in  Zurich,  and  then  in  Giessen,  d.  1879)  ; Gescliichte 

Jesu  von  Hazara.  Zurich,  1867-’72,  3 vols.  Also  an  abridgment 
in  one  volume,  1873,  2d  ed.  1875.  (This  2d  ed.  has  important  addi- 
tions, particularly  a critical  Appendix.)  The  large  work  is  trans- 


98 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


lated  into  English  by  Geldart  and  Ransom.  Lond.  (Williams  &. 
Norgate),  1873-’82,  6 vols.  By  the  same  author  : Der  geschichtliche 
Christus.  Zurich,  3d  ed.  1866.  Keim  attempts  to  reconstruct  a 
historical  Christ  from  the  Synoptical  Gospels,  especially  Matthew, 
but  without  John. 

Wm.  Hanna  : The  Life  of  our  Lord.  Edinb.  1868-69,  6 vols. 

Bishop  Dupanloup  (R.  C.)  : Histoire  de  notre  Sauveur  Jesus  Christ. 
Paris,  1870. 

Fr.  W.  Farrar  (Canon  of  Westminster)  : The  Life  of  Christ.  Lond. 
and  N.  York,  1874,  2 vols.  (in  many  editions,  one  with  illustrations). 

C.  Geikie  : The  Life  and  Words  of  Christ.  Lond.  and  N.  York,  1878, 
2 vols.  (Illustrated.  Several  editions.) 

Bernhard  Weiss  (Prof,  in  Berlin)  : Das  Lehen  Jesu.  Berlin,  1882, 
2 vols.,  3d  ed.  1888.  English  transl.  Edinb.  1885,  3 vols. 

Alfred  Edersheim  i The  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah.  London 
and  N.  Y.  1884,  2 vols.  Strictly  orthodox.  Valuable  for  rabbinical 
illustrations. 

W.  Beyschlag : Das  Lehen  Jesu.  Halle,  1885-86,  2 vols.  ; 2d  ed.  1888. 

The  works  of  Paulus,  Strauss,  and  Renan  (also  Joseph  Salvador, 
a learned  Jew  in  France,  author  of  Jesus  Christ  et  sa  doctrine , Par. 
1838)  represent  the  various  phases  of  rationalism  and  destructive 
criticism,  but  have  called  forth  also  a copious  and  valuable  apolo- 
getic literature.  See  the  bibliography  in  Hase’s  Lehen  Jesu , 5th  ed. 
p.  44  sqq.,  and  in  his  Geschichte  Jesu,  p.  124  sqq.  Schleiermacher, 
Gfrorer,  Weisse,  Ewald,  Schenkel,  Hase,  and  Keim  occupy,  in 
various  degrees  and  with  many  differences,  a middle  position.  The 
great  Schleiermacher  almost  perished  in  the  sea  of  scepticism,  but, 
like  Peter,  he  caught  the  saving  arm  of  Jesus  extended  to  him 
(Matt.  14 : 30,  31).  Hase  is  very  valuable  for  the  bibliography  and 
suggestive  sketches,  Ewald  and  Keim  for  independent  research  and 
careful  use  of  Josephus  and  the  contemporary  history.  Keim  rejects, 
Ewald  accepts,  the  Gospel  of  John  as  authentic;  both  admit  the 
sinless  perfection  of  Jesus,  and  Keim,  from  his  purely  critical  and 
synoptical  standpoint,  goes  so  far  as  to  say  (vol.  iii.  662)  that  Christ, 
in  his  gigantic  elevation  above  his  own  and  succeeding  ages,  “ makes 
the  impression  of  mysterious  loneliness,  superhuman  miracle,  divine 
creation  (den  Eindruck  gelieimnissvoller  Einsamkeit , ubermenschlichen 
W under s,  gottlicher  Schopfung).”  Weiss  and  Beysclilag  mark  a still 
greater  advance,  and  triumphantly  defend  the  genuineness  of  John’s 
Gospel,  but  make  concessions  to  criticism  in  minor  details. 

C.  Chronological. 

Kepler  : De  Jesu  Christi  Servatoris  nostri  vero  anno  natalicio.  Frankf. 
1606.  De  vero  anno  quo  eeternus  Dei  Filius  humanam  naturam  in 
utero  benedictce  Virginis  Marice  assumpsit.  Frcf.  1614. 

J.  A.  Bengel  : Ordo  Temporum.  Stuttgart,  1741,  and  1770. 

Henr.  Sanclemente  : De  Vulgaris  Aerce  Emendatione  libri  quatuor. 


§ 14.  SOURCES  AND  LITERATURE. 


99 


C.  Ideler  : Handbuch  der  Chronologie.  Berlin,  1825-’26,  2 vols.  By  the 
same  : Lehrbuch  der  Chronologie , 1831. 

Fr.  Munter  : Der  Stem  der  Weisen.  Kopenliagen,  1827. 

K.  Wieseler  : Clironolog.  Synopse  der  vier  Evangelien.  Hamb.  1843. 
Eng.  trans.  by  Venables , 2d  ed.,  1877.  Supplemented  by  his  Bei - 
trage  zur  richtigen  Wurdigung  der  Evangelien.  Gotha,  1869. 

Henry  Browne  : Oi'do  Sceclorum.  London,  1844.  Comp,  his  art.  Chro- 
nology, in  the  3d  ed.  of  Kitto’s  “Cycl.  of  Bib.  Lit.” 

Sam.  E.  Jarvis  (historiographer  of  the  Prot.  Episc.  Ch.  in  the  U.  S.,  d. 
1851) : A Chronological  Introduction  to  the  History  of  the  Church.  N. 
York,  1845. 

G.  Seyffarth  : Chrcmologia  sacra , Untersuchungen  iibei'  das  Geburtsjahr 

des  Hei'm.  Leipzig,  1846. 

Bud.  Anger  : Der  Stem  der  Weisen  und  das  Geburtsjahr  Christi.  Leipz. 

1847.  By  the  same.  Zur  Chronologie  des  Lehramtes  Christi.  Leipz. 

1848. 

Henry  F.  Clinton  : Fasti  Romani.  Oxford,  1845-’50,  2 vols. 

Thomas  Lewin  : Essay  on  the  Chronology  of  the  New  Testament.  Oxford, 
1854.  The  same : Fasti  Sacid  (from  b.c.  70  to  a.d.  70).  Lond. 
1865. 

F.  Piper  : Das  Datum  der  Geburt  Christi , in  his  “ Evangel.  Kalender  ” 
for  1856,  pp.  41  sqq. 

Henri  Lutteroth  : Le  recensement  de  Quirinius  en  Judee.  Paris,  1865 
(134  pp.). 

Gust.  Bosch  : Zum  Geburtsjahr  Jesu , in  the  “ Jahrbiicher  fur  Deutsche 
Tlieol.”  Gotha,  1866,  pp.  3-48. 

Ch.  Ed.  Caspari  : Chronologisch-Geographische  Einleitung  in  das  Leben 
J.  C.  Hamb.  1869  (263  pp.).  English  translation  by  M.  J.  Evans . 
Edinburgh  (T.  Clark),  1876. 

Francis  W.  Upham  : The  Wise  Men.  N.  York,  1869  (ch.  viii.,  145,  on 
Kepler’s  Discovery).  Star  of  Our  Lord , by  the  same  author.  N.  Y., 
1873. 

A.  W.  Zumpt  : Das  Geburtsjahr  Christi.  Leipz.  1869  (306  pp.).  He 
makes  much  account  of  the  double  governorship  of  Quirinius, 
Luke  2:2.  Comp.  Pres.  Woolsey  in  Bibl.  Sacra , April,  1870. 

Herm.  Sevin  : Chronologie  des  Lebens  Jesu.  Tubingen,  2d.  ed.,  1874. 
Florian  Biess  (Jesuit) : Das  Geburtsjahr  Christi.  Freiburg  i.  Br.  1880. 
Peter  Schegg  (R.  C.) : Das  Todesjahr  des  Konigs  Hei'odes  und  das  Todes - 
jahr  Jesu  Christi.  Against  Biess.  Miinchen,  1882. 

Florian  Biess:  Nochmals  das  Geburtsjahr  Jesu  Christi.  Reply  to 
Schegg.  Freib.  im  Br.  1883. 

Bernhard  Matthias:  Die  romische  Grundsteuer  und  das  Vectigalrecht. 
Erlangen,  1882. 

H.  Lecoultre  : De  censu  Quiriniano  et  anno  nativitatis  Christi  secundum 

Lucam  evangelistam  Dissertatio.  Lausanne,  1883. 


100 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


§ 15.  The  Founder  of  Christianity. 

When  “the  fulness  of  the  time”  was  come,  God  sent  forth  his 
only-begotten  Son,  “ the  Desire  of  all  nations,”  to  redeem  the 
world  from  the  curse  of  sin,  and  to  establish  an  everlasting 
kingdom  of  truth,  love,  and  peace  for  all  who  should  believe  on 
his  name. 

In  Jesus  Christ  a preparatory  history  both  divine  and  hu- 
man comes  to  its  close.  In  him  culminate  all  the  previous 
revelations  of  God  to  Jews  and  Gentiles ; and  in  him  are  ful- 
filled the  deepest  desires  and  efforts  of  both  Gentiles  and  Jews 
for  redemption.  In  his  divine  nature,  as  Logos,  he  is,  accord- 
ing to  St.  John,  the  eternal  Son  of  the  Father,  and  the  agent 
in  the  creation  and  preservation  of  the  world,  and  in  all  those 
preparatory  manifestations  of  God,  which  were  completed  in 
the  incarnation.  In  his  human  nature,  as  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
he  is  the  ripe  fruit  of  the  religious  growth  of  humanity,  with 
an  earthly  ancestry,  which  St.  Matthew  (the  evangelist  of  Is- 
rael) traces  to  Abraham,  the  patriarch  of  the  Jews,  and  St. 
Luke  (the  evangelist  of  the  Gentiles),  to  Adam,  the  father  of 
all  men.  In  him  dwells  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily  ; 
and  in  him  also  is  realized  the  ideal  of  human  virtue  and  piety. 
He  is  the  eternal  Truth,  and  the  divine  Life  itself,  personally 
joined  with  our  nature ; he  is  our  Lord  and  our  God ; yet  at 
the  same  time  flesh  of  our  flesh  and  bone  of  our  bone.  In  him 
is  solved  the  problem  of  religion,  the  reconciliation  and  fellow- 
ship of  man  with  God ; and  we  must  expect  no  clearer  revela- 
tion of  God,  nor  any  higher  religious  attainment  of  man,  than 
is  already  guaranteed  and  actualized  in  his  person. 

But  as  Jesus  Christ  thus  closes  all  previous  history,  so,  on 
the  other  hand,  he  begins  an  endless  future.  He  is  the  author 
of  a new  creation,  the  second  Adam,  the  father  of  regenerate 
humanity,  the  head  of  the  church,  “which  is  his  body,  the 
fulness  of  him,  that  filleth  all  in  all.”  lie  is  the  pure  fountain 
of  that  stream  of  light  and  life,  which  has  since  flowed  un- 


§ 15.  THE  FOUNDER  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  101 

broken  through  nations  and  ages,  and  will  continue  to  flow,  till 
the  earth  shall  be  full  of  his  praise,  and  every  tongue  shall 
confess  that  he  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father.  The 
universal  diffusion  and  absolute  dominion  of  the  spirit  and  life 
of  Christ  will  be  also  the  completion  of  the  human  race,  the 
end  of  history,  and  the  beginning  of  a glorious  eternity. 

It  is  the  great  and  difficult  task  of  the  biographer  of  Jesus  to 
show  how  he,  by  external  and  internal  development,  under  the 
conditions  of  a particular  people,  age,  and  country,  came  to  be 
in  fact  what  he  was  in  idea  and  destination,  and  what  he  will 
continue  to  be  for  the  faith  of  Christendom,  the  God-Man  and 
Saviour  of  the  world.  Being  divine  from  eternity,  he  could 
not  become  God ; but  as  man  he  was  subject  to  the  laws  of 
human  life  and  gradual  growth.  “He  advanced  in  wisdom 
and  stature,  and  in  favor  with  God  and  man.”  1 Though  he 
was  the  Son  of  God,  “yet  he  learned  obedience  by  the  things 
which  he  suffered ; and  having  been  made  perfect,  he  became 
the  author  of  eternal  salvation  unto  all  them  that  obey  him.” 8 
There  is  no  conflict  between  the  historical  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
and  the  ideal  Christ  of  faith.  The  full  understanding  of  his 
truly  human  life,  by  its  very  perfection  and  elevation  above 
all  other  men  before  and  after  him,  will  necessarily  lead  to  an 
admission  of  his  own  testimony  concerning  his  divinity. 

“ Deep  strike  thy  roots,  O heavenly  Vine, 

Within  our  earthly  sod  ! 

Most  human  and  yet  most  divine. 

The  flower  of  man  and  God  ! ” 

Jesus  Christ  came  into  the  world  under  Caesar  Augustus, 
the  first  Homan  emperor,  before  the  death  of  king  Herod 
the  Great,  four  years  before  the  traditional  date  of  our  Diony- 
sian sera.  He  was  born  at  Bethlehem  of  Judaea,  in  the  royal 
line  of  David,  from  Mary,  “ the  wedded  Maid  and  Virgin  Moth- 
er.” The  world  was  at  peace,  and  the  gates  of  Janus  were 
closed  for  only  the  second  time  in  the  history  of  Home.  There 


1 Luke  2 : 52. 


2 Hebr.  5 : 8,  9. 


102 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


is  a poetic  and  moral  fitness  in  this  coincidence  : it  secured 
a hearing  for  the  gentle  message  of  peace  which  might  have 
been  drowned  in  the  passions  of  war  and  the  clamor  of  arms. 
Angels  from  heaven  proclaimed  the  good  tidings  of  his  birth 
with  songs  of  praise;  Jewish  shepherds  from  the  neighbor- 
ing fields,  and  heathen  sages  from  the  far  east  greeted  the  new- 
born king  and  Saviour  with  the  homage  of  believing  hearts. 
Heaven  and  earth  gathered  in  joyful  adoration  around  the 
Christ-child,  and  the  blessing  of  this  event  is  renewed  from 
year  to  year  among  high  and  low,  rich  and  poor,  old  and  young, 
throughout  the  civilized  world. 

The  idea  of  a perfect  childhood,  sinless  and  holy,  yet  truly 
human  and  natural,  had  never  entered  the  mind  of  poet  or  his- 
torian before ; and  when  the  legendary  fancy  of  the  Apocryphal 
Gospels  attempted  to  fill  out  the  chaste  silence  of  the  Evangel- 
ists, it  painted  an  unnatural  prodigy  of  a child  to  whom  wild 
animals,  trees,  and  dumb  idols  bowed,  and  who  changed  balls 
of  clay  into  flying  birds  for  the  amusement  of  his  playmates. 

The  youth  of  Jesus  is  veiled  in  mystery.  We  know  only 
one,  but  a very  significant  fact.  When  a boy  of  twelve  years 
he  astonished  the  doctors  in  the  temple  by  his  questions  and 
answers,  without  repelling  them  by  immodesty  and  premature 
wisdom,  and  filled  his  parents  with  reverence  and  awe  by  his 
absorption  in  the  things  of  his  heavenly  Father,  and  yet  was 
subject  and  obedient  to  them  in  all  things.  Here,  too,  there  is 
a clear  line  of  distinction  between  the  supernatural  miracle  of 
history  and  the  unnatural  prodigy  of  apocryphal  fiction,  which 
represents  Jesus  as  returning  most  learned  answers  to  perplex- 
ing questions  of  the  doctors  about  astronomy,  medicine,  physics, 
metaphysics,  and  hyperphysics.1 

The  external  condition  and  surroundings  of  his  youth  are 
in  sharp  contrast  with  the  amazing  result  of  his  public  life. 
He  grew  up  quietly  and  unnoticed  in  a retired  Galilean  moun- 
tain village  of  proverbial  insignificance,  and  in  a lowly  carpen- 


1 See  Cowper,  l.  c.  pp.  212-214. 


§ 15.  THE  FOUNDER  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  103 

ter-shop,  far  away  from  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  from  schools 
and  libraries,  with  no  means  of  instruction  save  those  which 
were  open  to  the  humblest  Jew — the  care  of  godly  parents,  the 
beauties  of  nature,  the  services  of  the  synagogue,  the  secret 
communion  of  the  soul  with  God,  and  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  Testament,  which  recorded  in  type  and  prophecy  his  own 
character  and  mission.  All  attempts  to  derive  his  doctrine 
from  any  of  the  existing  schools  and  sects  have  utterly  failed. 
He  never  referred  to  the  traditions  of  the  elders  except  to  op- 
pose them.  From  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  he  differed 
alike,  and  provoked  their  deadly  hostility.  With  the  Essenes 
he  never  came  in  contact.  He  was  independent  of  human 
learning  and  literature,  of  schools  and  parties.  He  taught  the 
world  as  one  who  owed  nothing  to  the  world.  He  came  down 
from  heaven  and  spoke  out  of  the  fulness  of  his  personal  inter- 
course with  the  great  Jehovah.  He  was  no  scholar,  no  artist, 
no  orator ; yet  was  he  wiser  than  all  sages,  he  spake  as  never 
man  spake,  and  made  an  impression  on  his  age  and  all  ages 
after  him  such  as  no  man  ever  made  or  can  make.  Hence  the 
natural  surprise  of  his  countrymen  as  expressed  in  the  ques- 
tion: “From  whence  hath  this  man  these  things  ? ” “How 
knoweth  this  man  letters,  having  never  learned  ? ” 1 

He  began  his  public  ministry  in  the  thirtieth  year  of  his  age, 
after  the  Messianic  inauguration  by  the  baptism  of  John,  and 
after  the  Messianic  probation  in  the  wilderness — the  counter- 
part of  the  temptation  of  the  first  Adam  in  Paradise.  That 
ministry  lasted  only  three  years — and  yet  in  these  three  years 
is  condensed  the  deepest  meaning  of  the  history  of  religion. 
No  great  life  ever  passed  so  swiftly,  so  quietly,  so  humbly,  so 
far  removed  from  the  noise  and  commotion  of  the  world  ; and 
no  great  life  after  its  close  excited  such  universal  and  lasting 
interest.  He  was  aware  of  this  contrast : he  predicted  his 
deepest  humiliation  even  to  the  death  on  the  cross,  and  the 
subsequent  irresistible  attraction  of  this  cross,  which  may  be 


1 Mark  6 : 2,  3;  Matt.  13  : 54-56  ; John  7 : 15. 


104 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


witnessed  from  day  to  day  wherever  his  name  is  known.  He 
who  could  say,  “If  I be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  I will  draw 
all  men  unto  myself,”  1 knew  more  of  the  course  of  history  and 
of  the  human  heart  than  all  the  sages  and  legislators  before 
and  after  him. 

He  chose  twelve  apostles  for  the  Jews  and  seventy  disciples 
for  the  Gentiles,  not  from  among  the  scholars  and  leaders,  but 
from  among  the  illiterate  fishermen  of  Galilee.  lie  had  no 
home,  no  earthly  possessions,  no  friends  among  the  mighty  and 
the  rich.  A few  pious  women  from  time  to  time  filled  his 
purse  ; and  this  purse  was  in  the  hands  of  a thief  and  a traitor. 
He  associated  with  publicans  and  sinners,  to  raise  them  up  to  a 
higher  and  nobler  life,  and  began  his  reformation  among  the 
lower  classes,  which  were  despised  and  neglected  by  the  proud 
hierarchy  of  the  day.  He  never  courted  the  favor  of  the  great, 
but  incurred  their  hatred  and  persecution.  He  never  liattered 
the  prejudices  of  the  age,  but  rebuked  sin  and  vice  among  the 
high  and  the  low,  aiming  his  severest  words  at  the  blind  leaders 
of  the  blind,  the  self-righteous  hypocrites  who  sat  on  Moses'  seat, 
lie  never  encouraged  the  carnal  Messianic  hopes  of  the  people, 
but  withdrew  when  they  wished  to  make  him  a king,  and  de- 
clared before  the  representative  of  the  Homan  empire  that  his 
kingdom  was  not  of  this  world.  He  announced  to  his  disciples 
his  own  martyrdom,  and  promised  to  them  in  this  life  only  the 
same  baptism  of  blood.  He  went  about  in  Palestine,  often 
weary  of  travel,  but  never  weary  of  his  work  of  love,  doing 
good  to  the  souls  and  bodies  of  men,  speaking  wrords  of  spirit 
and  life,  and  working  miracles  of  power  and  mercy. 

He  taught  the  purest  doctrine,  as  a direct  revelation  of  his 
heavenly  Father,  from  his  own  intuition  and  experience,  and 
with  a power  and  authority  which  commanded  unconditional 
trust  and  obedience.  He  rose  above  the  prejudices  of  party 
and  sect,  above  the  superstitions  of  his  age  and  nation.  He 
addressed  the  naked  heart  of  man  and  touched  the  quick  of 


‘John  12:32. 


§ 15.  THE  FOUNDER  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


105 


the  conscience.  He  announced  the  founding  of  a spiritual 
kingdom  which  should  grow  from  the  smallest  seed  to  a 
mighty  tree,  and,  working  like  leaven  from  within,  should 
gradually  pervade  all  nations  and  countries.  This  colossal  idea, 
the  like  of  which  had  never  entered  the  imagination  of  men. 
he  held  fast  even  in  the  darkest  hour  of  humiliation,  before  the 
tribunal  of  the  Jewish  high-priest  and  the  Homan  governor, 
and  when  suspended  as  a malefactor  on  the  cross ; and  the 
truth  of  this  idea  is  illustrated  by  every  page  of  church  history 
and  in  every  mission  station  on  earth. 

The  miracles  or  signs  which  accompanied  his  teaching  are 
supernatural,  but  not  unnatural,  exhibitions  of  his  power  over 
man  and  nature ; no  violations  of  law,  but  manifestations  of  a 
higher  law,  the  superiority  of  mind  over  matter,  the  superiority 
of  spirit  over  mind,  the  superiority  of  divine  grace  over  human 
nature.  They  are  all  of  the  highest  moral  and  of  a profoundly 
symbolical  significance,  prompted  by  pure  benevolence,  and  in- 
tended for  the  good  of  men ; in  striking  contrast  with  decep- 
tive juggler  works  and  the  useless  and  absurd  miracles  of  apo- 
cryphal fiction.  They  were  performed  without  any  ostenta- 
tion, with  such  simplicity  and  ease  as  to  be  called  simply  his 
“ works.”  They  were  the  practical  proof  of  his  doctrine  and 
the  natural  reflex  of  his  wonderful  person.  The  absence  of 
wonderful  works  in  such  a wonderful  man  would  be  the  great- 
est wonder. 

His  doctrine  and  miracles  were  sealed  by  the  purest  and  holi- 
est life  in  private  and  public.  He  could  challenge  his  bitter- 
est opponents  with  the  question : “ Which  of  you  convicteth  me 
of  sin  ? ” well  knowing  that  they  could  not  point  to  a single 
spot. 

At  last  he  completed  his  active  obedience  by  the  passive 
obedience  of  suffering  in  cheerful  resignation  to  the  holy  will 
of  God.  Hated  and  persecuted  by  the  Jewish  hierarchy,  be- 
trayed into  their  hands  by  Judas,  accused  by  false  witnesses, 
condemned  by  the  Sanhedrin,  rejected  by  the  people,  denied 
by  Peter,  but  declared  innocent  by  the  representative  of  the 


106 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Roman  law  and  justice,  surrounded  by  his  weeping  mothei 
and  faithful  disciples,  revealing  in  those  dark  hours  by  word 
and  silence  the  gentleness  of  a lamb  and  the  dignity  of  a God, 
praying  for  his  murderers,  dispensing  to  the  penitent  thief  a 
place  in  paradise,  committing  his  soul  to  his  heavenly  Father, 
he  died,  with  the  exclamation : u It  is  finished  ! ” He  died  be- 
fore he  had  reached  the  prime  of  manhood.  The  Saviour  of 
the  world  a youth ! He  died  the  shameful  death  of  the  cross, 
the  just  for  the  unjust,  the  innocent  for  the  guilty,  a free  self- 
sacrifice  of  infinite  love,  to  reconcile  the  world  unto  God.  He 
conquered  sin  and  death  on  their  own  ground,  and  thus  re- 
deemed and  sanctified  all  who  are  willing  to  accept  his  benefits 
and  to  follow  his  example.  He  instituted  the  Lord’s  Supper, 
to  perpetuate  the  memory  of  his  death  and  the  cleansing  and 
atoning  power  of  his  blood  till  the  end  of  time. 

The  third  day  he  rose  from  the  grave,  the  conqueror  of 
death  and  hell,  the  prince  of  life  and  resurrection.  He  repeat- 
edly appeared  to  his  disciples ; he  commissioned  them  to  preach 
the  gospel  of  the  resurrection  to  every  creature ; he  took  pos- 
session of  his  heavenly  throne,  and  by  the  outpouring  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  he  established  the  church,  which  he  has  ever  since 
protected,  nourished,  and  comforted,  and  with  which  he  has 
promised  to  abide,  till  he  shall  come  again  in  glory  to  judge  the 
quick  and  the  dead. 

This  is  a meagre  outline  of  the  story  which  the  evangelists 
tell  us  with  childlike  simplicity,  and  yet  with  more  general  and 
lasting  effect  than  could  be  produced  by  the  highest  art  of  his- 
torical composition.  They  modestly  abstained  from  adding 
their  own  impressions  to  the  record  of  the  words  and  acts  of 
the  Master  whose  “ glory  they  beheld,  the  glory  as  of  the  only- 
begotten  from  the  Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth.” 

Who  would  not  shrink  from  the  attempt  to  describe  the 
moral  character  of  Jesus,  or,  having  attempted  it,  be  not  dis- 
satisfied with  the  result  ? Who  can  empty  the  ocean  into  a 
bucket?  Who  (we  may  ask  with  Lavater)  ucan  paint  the 
glory  of  the  rising  sun  with  a charcoal  ? ” No  artist’s  idea) 


§ 15.  THE  FOUNDER  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


107 


comes  up  to  the  reality  in  this  case,  though  his  ideals  may  sur- 
pass every  other  reality.  The  better  and  holier  a man  is,  the 
more  he  feels  his  need  of  pardon,  and  how  far  he  falls  short  of 
his  own  imperfect  standard  of  excellence.  But  Jesus,  with  the 
same  nature  as  ours  and  tempted  as  we  are,  never  yielded  to 
temptation ; never  had  cause  for  regretting  any  thought,  word, 
or  action  ; he  never  needed  pardon,  or  conversion,  or  reform ; 
he  never  fell  out  of  harmony  with  his  heavenly  Father.  His 
whole  life  was  one  unbroken  act  of  self-consecration  to  the 
glory  of  God  and  the  eternal  welfare  of  his  fellow-men.  A 
catalogue  of  virtues  and  graces,  however  complete,  would  give 
us  but  a mechanical  view.  It  is  the  spotless  purity  and  sinless- 
ness of  Jesus  as  acknowledged  by  friend  and  foe ; it  is  the  even 
harmony  and  symmetry  of  all  graces,  of  love  to  God  and  love 
to  man,  of  dignity  and  humility,  of  strength  and  tenderness,  of 
greatness  and  simplicity,  of  self-control  and  submission,  of 
active  and  passive  virtue ; it  is,  in  one  word,  the  absolute  per- 
fection which  raises  his  character  high  above  the  reach  of  all 
other  men  and  makes  it  an  exception  to  a universal  rule,  a 
moral  miracle  in  history.  It  is  idle  to  institute  comparisons 
with  saints  and  sages,  ancient  or  modern.  Even  the  infidel 
Rousseau  was  forced  to  exclaim : “ If  Socrates  lived  and  died 
like  a sage,  Jesus  lived  and  died  like  a God.”  Here  is  more 
than  the  starry  heaven  above  us,  and  the  moral  law  within 
us,  which  filled  the  soul  of  Kant  with  ever-growing  reverence 
and  awe.  Here  is  the  holy  of  holies  of  humanity,  here  is  the 
very  gate  of  heaven. 

Going  so  far  in  admitting  the  human  perfection  of  Christ — 
and  how  can  the  historian  do  otherwise  ? — we  are  driven  a step 
farther,  to  the  acknowledgment  of  his  amazing  claims,  which 
must  either  be  true,  or  else  destroy  all  foundation  for  admira- 
tion and  reverence  in  which  he  is  universally  held.  It  is  im- 
possible to  construct  a life  of  Christ  without  admitting  its  su- 
pernatural and  miraculous  character. 

The  divinity  of  Christ,  and  his  whole  mission  as  Redeemer, 
is  an  article  of  faith,  and,  as  such,  above  logical  or  mathemati- 


108 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


cal  demonstration.  The  incarnation  or  the  union  of  the  inti* 
nite  divinity  and  finite  humanity  in  one  person  is  indeed  the 
mystery  of  mysteries.  “ What  can  be  more  glorious  than  God  ? 
What  more  vile  than  flesh  ? What  more  wonderful  than  God 
in  the  flesh  ? ” 1 Yet  aside  from  all  dogmatizing  which  lies  out- 
side of  the  province  of  the  historian,  the  divinity  of  Christ  has 
a self-evidencing  power  which  forces  itself  irresistibly  upon  the 
reflecting  mind  and  historical  inquirer ; while  the  denial  of  it 
makes  his  person  an  inexplicable  enigma. 

It  is  inseparable  from  his  own  express  testimony  respecting 
himself,  as  it  appears  in  every  Gospel,  with  but  a slight  differ- 
ence of  degree  between  the  Synoptists  and  St.  John.  Only 
ponder  over  it ! He  claims  to  be  the  long-promised  Messiah 
who  fulfilled  the  law  and  the  prophets,  the  founder  and  law- 
giver of  a new  and  universal  kingdom,  the  light  of  the  world, 
the  teacher  of  all  nations  and  ages,  from  whose  authority  there 
is  no  appeal.  He  claims  to  have  come  into  this  world  for  the 
purpose  to  save  the  world  from  sin — which  no  merely  human 
being  can  possibly  do.  He  claims  the  power  to  forgive  sins  on 
earth  ; he  frequently  exercised  that  power,  and  it  was  for  the 
sins  of  mankind,  as  he  foretold,  that  he  shed  his  own  blood. 
He  invites  all  men  to  follow  him,  and  promises  peace  and  life 
eternal  to  every  one  that  believes  in  him.  He  claims  pre-exist- 
ence before  Abraham  and  the  world,  divine  names,  attributes, 
and  worship.  He  disposes  from  the  cross  of  places  in  Para- 
dise. In  directing  his  disciples  to  baptize  all  nations,  he  co- 
ordinates himself  with  the  eternal  Father  and  the  Divine  Spirit, 
and  promises  to  be  with  them  to  the  consummation  of  the  world 
and  to  come  again  in  glory  as  the  Judge  of  all  men.  He,  the 
humblest  and  meekest  of  men,  makes  these  astounding  pre- 
tensions in  the  most  easy  and  natural  way ; he  never  falters, 
never  apologizes,  never  explains  ; he  proclaims  them  as  self- 
evident  truths.  We  read  them  again  and  again,  and  never  feel 
any  incongruity  nor  think  of  arrogance  and  presumption. 

1 Augustine  : “ Deus;  quid  gloriosius  ? Caro;  quidvilius?  Deusincarne; 
quid  mirabilius  ? ” 


§ 15.  THE  FOUNDER  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


100 


And  yet  this  testimony,  if  not  true,  must  be  downright  blas- 
phemy or  madness.  The  former  hypothesis  cannot  stand  a 
moment  before  the  moral  purity  and  dignity  of  Jesus,  revealed 
in  his  every  word  and  work,  and  acknowledged  by  universal 
consent.  Self-deception  in  a matter  so  momentous,  and  with 
an  intellect  in  all  respects  so  clear  and  so  sound,  is  equally 
out  of  the  question.  How  could  lie  be  an  enthusiast  or  a mad- 
man who  never  lost  the  even  balance  of  his  mind,  who  sailed 
serenely  over  all  the  troubles  and  persecutions,  as  the  sun  above 
the  clouds,  who  always  returned  the  wisest  answer  to  tempting 
questions,  who  calmly  and  deliberately  predicted  his  death  on 
the  cross,  his  resurrection  on  the  third  day,  the  outpouring  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  the  founding  of  his  Church,  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem — predictions  which  have  been  literally  fulfilled  ? A 
character  so  original,  so  complete,  so  uniformly  consistent,  so 
perfect,  so  human  and  yet  so  high  above  all  human  greatness, 
can  be  neither  a fraud  nor  a fiction.  The  poet,  as  has  been 
well  said,  would  in  this  case  be  greater  than  the  hero.  It 
would  take  more  than  a Jesus  to  invent  a Jesus. 

We  are  shut  up  then  to  the  recognition  of  the  divinity  of 
Christ ; and  reason  itself  must  bow  in  silent  awe  before  the 
tremendous  word  : u I and  the  Father  are  one  ! ” and  respond 
with  skeptical  Thomas : “ My  Lord  and  my  God ! ” 

This  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the  effects  of  the  manifesta- 
tion of  Jesus,  which  far  transcend  all  merely  human  capacity 
and  power.  The  history  of  Christianity,  with  its  countless 
fruits  of  a higher  and  purer  life  of  truth  and  love  than  was 
ever  known  before  or  is  now  known  outside  of  its  influence,  is  a 
continuous  commentary  on  the  life  of  Christ,  and  testifies  on 
every  page  to  the  inspiration  of  his  holy  example.  His  power 
is  felt  on  every  Lord’s  Day  from  ten  thousand  pulpits,  in  the 
palaces  of  kings  and  the  huts  of  beggars,  in  universities  and 
colleges,  in  every  school  where  the  sermon  on  the  Mount  is 
read,  in  prisons,  in  almshouses,  in  orphan  asylums,  as  well  as 
in  happy  homes,  in  learned  works  and  simple  tracts  in  endless 
succession.  If  this  history  of  ours  has  any  value  at  all,  it  is 


110 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


a new  evidence  that  Christ  is  the  light  and  life  of  a fallen 
world. 

And  there  is  no  sign  that  his  power  is  waning.  His  kingdom 
is  more  widely  spread  than  ever  before,  and  has  the  fairest  pros- 
pect of  final  triumph  in  all  the  earth.  Napoleon  at  St.  Helena 
is  reported  to  have  been  struck  with  the  reflection  that  millions 
are  now  ready  to  die  for  the  crucified  Nazarene  who  founded 
a spiritual  empire  by  love,  while  no  one  would  die  for  Alexan- 
der, or  Caesar,  or  himself,  who  founded  temporal  empires  by 
force.  lie  saw  in  this  contrast  a convincing  argument  for  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  saying : “ I know  men,  and  I tell  you,  Christ 
was  not  a man.  Everything  about  Christ  astonishes  me.  His 
spirit  overwhelms  and  confounds  me.  There  is  no  comparison 
between  him  and  any  other  being.  He  stands  single  and 
alone.”1  And  Goethe,  another  commanding  genius,  of  very  dif- 
ferent character,  but  equally  above  suspicion  of  partiality  for 
religion,  looking  in  the  last  years  of  his  life  over  i;he  vast  field 
of  history,  was  constrained  to  confess  that  “ if  ever  the  Divine 
appeared  on  earth,  it  was  in  the  Person  of  Christ,”  and  that 
“ the  human  mind,  no  matter  how  far  it  may  advance  in  every 
other  department,  will  never  transcend  the  height  and  moral 
culture  of  Christianity  as  it  shines  and  glows  in  the  Gospels.” 

The  rationalistic,  mythical,  and  legendary  attempts  to  explain 
the  life  of  Christ  on  purely  human  and  natural  grounds,  and  to 
resolve  the  miraculous  elements  either  into  common  events,  or 
into  innocent  fictions,  split  on  the  rock  of  Christ’s  character 
and  testimony.  The  ablest  of  the  infidel  biographers  of  Jesus 
now  profess  the  profoundest  regard  for  his  character,  and  laud 

1 On  the  testimony  of  Napoleon  to  the  divinity  of  Christ  see  the  letters  of 
Bersier  and  Lutteroth  appended  to  the  twelfth  ed.  of  my  book  on  the  Person 
of  Christ  (1882),  p.  284,  and  pp.  219  sqq.  Napoleon  is  reported  to  have  asked 
the  poet  Wieland  at  a court-ball  in  Weimar,  during  the  Congress  of  Erfurt, 
whether  he  doubted  that  Jesus  ever  lived;  to  which  Wieland  promptly  and 
emphatically  replied  in  the  negative,  adding  that  with  equal  right  a thousand 
years  hence  men  might  deny  the  existence  of  Napoleon  or  the  battle  of  Jena. 
The  emperor  smiled  and  said,  tres-bien  ! The  question  was  designed  not  to 
express  doubt,  but  to  test  the  poet’s  faith.  So  Dr.  Hase  reports  from  the 
mouth  of  Chancellor  MUller,  who  heard  the  conversation.  Oeschichte  Jesu , p.  9. 


§ 16.  CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  Ill 


him  as  the  greatest  sage  and  saint  that  ever  appeared  on  earth. 
But,  by  rejecting  his  testimony  concerning  his  divine  origin 
and  mission,  they  turn  him  into  a liar ; and,  by  rejecting  the 
miracle  of  the  resurrection,  they  make  the  great  fact  of  Chris- 
tianity a stream  without  a source,  a house  without  a founda- 
tion, an  effect  without  a cause.  Denying  the  physical  miracles, 
they  expect  us  to  believe  even  greater  psychological  miracles ; 
yea,  they  substitute  for  the  supernatural  miracle  of  history  an 
unnatural  prodigy  and  incredible  absurdity  of  their  imagina- 
tion. They  moreover  refute  and  supersede  each  other.  The  his- 
tory of  error  in  the  nineteenth  century  is  a history  of  self-de- 
struction. A hypothesis  was  scarcely  matured  before  another 
was  invented  and  substituted,  to  meet  the  same  fate  in  its  turn  ; 
while  the  old  truth  and  faith  of  Christendom  remains  unshaken, 
and  marches  on  in  its  peaceful  conquest  against  sin  and  error. 

Truly,  Jesus  Christ,  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels,  the  Christ  of 
history,  the  crucified  and  risen  Christ,  the  divine-human  Christ, 
is  the  most  real,  the  most  certain,  the  most  blessed  of  all  facts. 
And  this  fact  is  an  ever-present  and  growing  power  which  per- 
vades the  Church  and  conquers  the  world,  and  is  its  own  best 
evidence,  as  the  sun  shining  in  the  heavens.  This  fact  is  the 
only  solution  of  the  terrible  mystery  of  sin  and  death,  the  only 
inspiration  to  a holy  life  of  love  to  God  and  man,  the  only 
guide  to  happiness  and  peace.  Systems  of  human  wisdom  will 
come  and  go,  kingdoms  and  empires  will  rise  and  fall,  but  for 
all  time  to  come  Christ  will  remain  “the  Way,  the  Truth,  and 
the  Life.” 


§ 16.  Chronology  of  the  Life  of  Christ . 

See  the  Lit.  in  g 14,  p.  98,  especially  Browne,  Wiese^er,  Zumpt, 
Andrews,  and  Ketm. 

We  briefly  consider  the  chronological  dates  of  the  life  of 
Christ. 

I.  The  Year  of  the  Nativity. — This  must  be  ascertained 
by  historical  and  chronological  research,  since  there  is  no  cer- 


112 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


tain  and  harmonious  tradition  on  the  subject.  Our  Christian  sera, 
which  was  introduced  by  the  Roman  abbot  Dionysius  Exiguus,  in 
the  sixth  century,  and  came  into  general  use  two  centuries  later, 
during  the  reign  of  Charlemagne,  puts  the  Nativity  Dec.  25,  754 
Anno  Urbis,  that  is,  after  the  founding  of  the  city  of  Rome.1 
Nearly  all  chronologers  agree  that  this  is  wrong  by  at  least  four 
years.  Christ  was  born  a.u.  750  (or  b.c.  4),  if  not  earlier. 

This  is  evident  from  the  following  chronological  hints  in  the 
Gospels,  as  compared  with  and  confirmed  by  Josephus  and 
contemporary  writers,  and  by  astronomical  calculations. 

The  Death  of  Herod. 

(1)  According  to  Matthew  2 : 1 (comp.  Luke  1 : 5,  26),  Christ 
was  born  “ in  the  days  of  king  Ilerod  ” I.  or  the  Great,  who 
died,  according  to  Josephus,  at  Jericho,  a.u.  750,  just  before 
the  Passover,  being  nearly  seventy  years  of  age,  after  a reign 
of  thirty-seven  years.3  This  date  has  been  verified  by  the 
astronomical  calculation  of  the  eclipse  of  the  moon,  which  took 
place  March  13,  a.u.  750,  a few  days  before  Herod’s  death.3 
Allowing  two  months  or  more  for  the  events  between  the  birth 
of  Christ  and  the  murder  of  the  Innocents  by  Herod,  the 
Nativity  must  be  put  back  at  least  to  February  or  January,  a.u. 
750  (or  b.c.  4),  if  not  earlier. 

Some  infer  from  the  slaughter  of  the  male  children  in  Beth- 
lehem, “ from  two  years  old  and  under,” 4 that  Christ  must  have 

1 The  fathers  distinguish  between  the  Nativity  (ycvevis,  Matt.  1 : 18)  and  the 
Incarnation  (adpKuxris),  and  identify  the  Incarnation  with  the  Conception  or 
Annunciation.  Since  the  time  of  Charlemagne  the  two  terms  seem  to  have 
been  used  synonymously.  See  Ideler,  Chronol.,  ii.  383,  and  Gieseler,  i.  70 
(4th  Germ.  ed.). 

2 Jos.,  Antiqu.,  xvii.  8,  1 : “ Herod  died  . . . having  reigned  since  he  had 
procured  Antigonus  to  be  slain  [A.u.  717,  or  b.c.  37],  thirty-four  years,  but  since 
he  had  been  declared  king  by  the  Homans  [a.u.  714,  or  b.c.  40],  thirty-seven.” 
Comp,  the  same  statement  in  Bell.  Jud.y  i.  33,  8,  and  other  passages. 

3 According  to  Josephus,  Antiqu. % xvii.  0,  4:  “And  that  night  there  was 
an  eclipse  of  the  moon.”  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  Josephus  mentions  no 
other  eclipse  in  any  of  his  works. 

4 Matt.  2 : 16  : iravras  rovs  vaiSas  . . . iirb  5 teroGs  /cal  Karurcpu)  Karh  rbv 
Xp6vov  bv  t)Kp[fSw(rev  ir aph  tuv  pidyotv. 


§ 16.  CHRONOLOGY  OF  TIIE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  113 


been  born  two  years  before  Herod’s  death  ; but  he  counted  from 
the  time  when  the  star  was  first  seen  by  the  Magi  (2 : 7),  and 
wished  to  make  sure  of  his  object.  There  is  no  good  reason  to 
doubt  the  fact  itself,  and  the  flight  of  the  holy  family  to  Egypt, 
which  is  inseparably  connected  with  it.  For,  although  the 
horrible  deed  is  ignored  by  Josephus,  it  is  in  keeping  with 
the  well-known  cruelty  of  Herod,  who  from  jealousy  murdered 
Hyrcanus,  the  grandfather  of  his  favorite  wife,  Mariamne  ; then 
Mariamne  herself,  to  whom  he  was  passionately  attached ; her  two 
sons,  Alexander  and  Aristobulus,  and,  only  five  days  before  his 
death,  his  oldest  son,  Antipater ; and  who  ordered  all  the  nobles 
assembled  around  him  in  his  last  moments  to  be  executed  after 
his  decease,  so  that  at  least  his  death  might  be  attended  by 
universal  mourning.  For  such  a monster  the  murder  of  one  or 
two  dozen  infants  in  a little  town1 2  was  a very  small  matter, 
which  might  easily  have  been  overlooked,  or,  owing  to  its  con- 
nection with  the  Messiah,  purposely  ignored  by  the  Jewish  histo- 
rian. But  a confused  remembrance  of  it  is  preserved  in  the  anec- 
dote related  by  Macrobius  (a  Roman  grammarian  and  probably 
a heathen,  about  a.d.  410),  that  Augustus,  on  hearing  of  Herod’s 
murder  of  “ boys  under  two  years  ” and  of  his  own  son,  remarked 
“ that  it  was  better  to  be  Herod’s  swine  than  his  son.” 3 The 
cruel  persecution  of  Herod  and  the  flight  into  Egypt  were  a 
significant  sign  of  the  experience  of  the  early  church,  and  a source 
of  comfort  in  every  period  of  martyrdom. 

The  Star  of  the  Magi. 

(2)  Another  chronological  hint  of  Matthew,  ch.  2 : 1-4,  9,  which 
has  been  verified  by  astronomy,  is  the  Star  of  the  Wise  Men, 

1 Tradition  has  here  most  absurdly  swelled  the  number  of  Innocents  to  20,000, 
as  indicated  on  the  massive  column,  which  marks  the  spot  of  their  supposed 
martyrdom  in  the  Church  of  the  Nativity  at  Bethlehem.  XX  M [artyres] , i.  e. 
martyrs,  have  become  XX  M [ilia] , i.  e.  twenty  thousands. 

2 Macrob.,  Sat.,  ii.  4 : “ Augustus,  cum  audisset , inter  puer os , quos  in  Syria 
Herodes , rex  Judceorum , intra  bimatum  [perhaps  taken  from  Matt.  2 : 16, 
Vulg.  : a bimatu  et  infra ] jussit  interfici , JUium  quoque  eius  occisum , ait  : me- 
lius est  Herodis  porcum  esse  quam  JUium”  It  is  a pun  on  the  similar  sounding 

8 


114 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


which  appeared  before  the  death  of  Herod,  and  which  would 
naturally  attract  the  attention  of  the  astrological  sages  of  the 
East,  in  connection  with  the  expectation  of  the  advent  of  a great 
king  among  the  Jews.  Such  a belief  naturally  arose  from  Ba- 
laam’s prophecy  of  “ the  star  that  was  to  rise  out  of  Jacob  ” (Num. 
24 : 17),  and  from  the  Messianic  prophecies  of  Isaiah  and  Daniel, 
and  widely  prevailed  in  the  East  since  the  dispersion  of  the  Jews.’ 

The  older  interpretation  of  that  star  made  it  either  a passing 
meteor,  or  a strictly  miraculous  phenomenon,  which  lies  beyond 
astronomical  calculation,  and  was  perhaps  visible  to  the  Magi 
alone.  But  Providence  usually  works  through  natural  agencies, 
and  that  God  did  so  in  this  case  is  made  at  least  very  probable 
by  a remarkable  discovery  in  astronomy.  The  great  and  devout 
Kepler  observed  in  the  years  1603  and  1604  a conjunction  of 
Jupiter  and  Saturn,  which  was  made  more  rare  and  luminous 
by  the  addition  of  Mars  in  the  month  of  March,  1604.  In  the 
autumn  of  the  same  year  (Oct.  10)  he  observed  near  the  planets 
Saturn,  Jupiter  and  Mars  a new  (fixed)  star  of  uncommon  bril- 
liancy, which  appeared  “ in  triumphal  pomp,  like  some  all-power- 
ful monarch  on  a visit  to  the  metropolis  of  his  realm.”  It  was 

Greek  terms  for  sow  and  son  (5s  and  vl6s).  Kepler  already  quoted  this  pas- 
sage in  confirmation  of  Matthew. 

1 Tacitus  (Hist.,  v.  18)  and  Suetonius  ( Vespas .,  c.  4)  speak  of  a widespread 
expectation  of  that  kind  at  the  time  of  the  Jewish  war  and  before  (Sueto- 
nius calls  it  a vetus  et  constans  opinio ),  but  falsely  refer  it  to  the  Roman  em- 
perors Vespasianus  and  Titus.  In  this  the  heathen  historians  followed  Jose- 
phus, who  well  knew  and  believed  the  Messianic  hopes  of  his  people  (comp. 
Ant.,  iv.  6,  5 ; x.  10,  4;  11,  7),  and  yet  was  not  ashamed  basely  to  betray 
and  pervert  them,  saying  {Bell.  Jud .,  vi.  5,  4) : “What  did  the  most  to  elevate 
the  Jews  in  undertaking  this  war,  was  an  ambiguous  oracle  that  was  found 
also  in  their  sacred  writings,  how  ‘ about  that  time,  one  from  their  country 
should  become  governor  of  the  habitable  earth.’  The  Jews  took  this  predic- 
tion to  belong  to  themselves  in  particular,  and  many  of  the  wise  men  were 
thereby  deceived  in  their  determination.  Now,  this  oracle  certainly  denoted 
the  government  of  Vespasian , who  was  appointed  emperor  in  Judaea.”  Comp. 
Hausrath,  N.  T.  Ztgesch.,  I.  173.  The  Messianic  hopes  continued  long  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  The  false  Messiah,  who  led  the  rebellion  under 
the  reign  of  Hadrian  (a.d.  135),  called  himself  Bar-Gochcba,  i.  e.  “ Son  of  the 
Star,”  and  issued  coins  with  a star,  in  allusion  probably  to  Num.  24  : 17. 
When  his  real  character  was  revealed,  his  name  was  turned  into  Bar-  Goiibat 
44  Son  of  Falsehood.” 


§ 16.  CHRONOLOGY  OF  TIIE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  115 


blazing  and  glittering  “like  the  most  beautiful  and  glorious 
torch  ever  seen  when  driven  by  a strong  wind,”  and  seemed  to 
him  to  be  “ an  exceedingly  wonderful  work  of  God.”  1 Ilis 
genius  perceived  that  this  phenomenon  must  lead  to  the  de- 
termination of  the  year  of  Christ’s  birth,  and  by  careful  calcu- 
lation he  ascertained  that  a similar  conjunction  of  Jupiter  and 
Saturn,  with  the  later  addition  of  Mars,  and  probably  some  ex- 
traordinary star,  took  place- repeatedly  a.u.  747  and  748  in  the 
sign  of  the  Pisces. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  Jewish  astrologers  ascribe  a special 
signification  to  the  conjunction  of  the  planets  Jupiter  and  Saturn 
in  the  sign  of  the  Pisces,  and  connect  it  with  the  advent  of  the 
Messiah.5 

The  discovery  of  Kepler  was  almost  forgotten  till  the  nine- 
teenth century,  when  it  was  independently  confirmed  by  several 
eminent  astronomers,  Schubert  of  Petersburg,  Ideler  and  Encke 
of  Berlin,  and  Pritchard  of  London.  It  is  pronounced  by  Pritch- 
ard to  be  “as  certain  as  any  celestial  phenomenon  of  ancient 

1 In  the  beginning  of  his  Bericht  vom  Geburtsjahr  Christi  (Opera,  IV.  204), 

he  describes  this  new  star  in  these  words  : “ Ein  ungewohn/icher , sehr  heller 
und  schbner  Stern  . . . der  me  die  schonste , herrlichste  Fackel  so  jemahl 

mit  Augen  gesehen  ivorden,  wenn  sie  von  einem  starken  Wind  getrieben  wird, 
geflammet  und  gefunkdt , gerad  neben  den  dreg  hbchsten  Planeten  Satvmo, 
Jove  und  Marie.  ” He  calls  this  phenomenon  ‘ ‘ ein  uberaus  grosses  Wundei'- 
werk  Gottes .”  A fuller  description  of  the  whole  phenomenon  he  gives  in  his 
work  Be  Stella  Nova  (Opera,  II.  575  sqq.  and  801  sqq.,  ed.  Frisch).  Upham 
(The  Wise  Men , N.  Y.  1869,  p.  145)  says:  “Tycho  de  Brahe  had  observed 
a similar  wonder  in  the  constellation  Cassiopeia,  on  the  night  of  the  11th 
of  October,  in  the  year  1572.  These  were  not  luminous  bodies  within  our 
atmosphere ; were  not  within,  or  near,  the  solar  system  ; they  were  in  the 
region  of  the  fixed  stars.  Each  grew  more  and  more  brilliant,  till  it  shone 
like  a planet.  Then  its  lustre  waned  until  it  ceased  to  be  visible, — the  one  in 
March,  1574,  the  other  in  February,  1606.  The  light  was  white,  then  yellow, 
then  red,  then  dull,  and  so  went  out.”  On  Temporary  Stars,  see  Herschel’s 
Astronomy , Chap.  XII. 

2 The  learned  Jewish  Rabbi  Abarbanel,  in  his  Commentary  on  Daniel  (called 
Ma‘jne  hajeshuah , i.  e.  “Wells  of  Salvation,”  Isa.  12:3),  which  was  pub- 
lished 1547,  more  than  fifty  years  before  Kepler’s  calculation,  says  that  such 
a conjunction  took  place  three  years  before  the  birth  of  Moses  (a.m.  2365), 
and  would  reappear  before  the  birth  of  the  Messiah,  a.m.  5224  (or  a.d.  1463). 
Ideler  and  Wieseler  conjecture  that  this  astrological  belief  existed  among  the 
Jews  already  at  the  time  of  Christ. 


116 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


date.”  It  certainly  makes  the  pilgrimage  of  the  Magi  to  Jenu 
salem  and  Bethlehem  more  intelligible.  “ The  star  of  astrology 
has  thus  become  a torch  of  chronology  ” (as  Ideler  says),  and  an 
argument  for  the  truthfulness  of  the  first  Gospel.1 

It  is  objected  that  Matthew  seems  to  mean  a single  star  ( darijp , 
comp.  ver.  9)  rather  than  a combination  of  stars  ( aarpov ). 
Hence  Dr.  Wieseler  supplements  the  calculation  of  Kepler  and 
Ideler  by  calling  to  aid  a single  comet  which  appeared  from 
February  to  April,  a.u.  750,  according  to  the  Chinese  astronomi- 
cal tables,  which  Pingre  and  Humboldt  acknowledge  as  histori- 
cal. But  this  is  rather  far-fetched  and  hardly  necessary ; for 
that  extraordinary  star  described  by  Kepler,  or  Jupiter  at  its 
most  luminous  appearance,  as  described  by  Pritchard,  in  that 
memorable  conjunction,  would  sufficiently  answer  the  descrip- 
tion of  a single  star  by  Matthew,  which  must  at  all  events  not 
be  pressed  too  literally ; for  the  language  of  Scripture  on  the 
heavenly  bodies  is  not  scientific,  but  phenomenal  and  popular. 
God  condescended  to  the  astrological  faith  of  the  Magi,  and 
probably  made  also  an  internal  revelation  to  them  before,  as 
well  as  after  the  appearance  of  the  star  (comp.  2 : 12). 

If  we  accept  the  result  of  these  calculations  of  astronomers 
we  are  brought  to  within  two  years  of  the  year  of  the  Nativity, 
namely,  between  a.u.  748  (Kepler)  and  750  (Wieseler).  The 
difference  arises,  of  course,  from  the  uncertainty  of  the  time  of 
departure  and  the  length  of  the  journey  of  the  Magi. 

As  this  astronomical  argument  is  often  very  carelessly  and  erroneously 
stated,  and  as  the  works  of  Kepler  and  Ideler  are  not  easy  of  access,  at 
least  in  America  (I  found  them  in  the  Astor  Library),  I maybe  permitted 
to  state  the  case  more  at  length.  John  Kepler  wrote  three  treatises  on 
the  year  of  Christ’s  birth,  two  in  Latin  (1606  and  1614),  one  in  German 
(1613),  in  which  he  discusses  with  remarkable  learning  the  various  pas- 

1 It  has  been  so  accepted  by  Dean  Alford  and  others.  See  the  note  in  Gth 
ed.  of  his  Com.  on  Matt.  2 : 2 (1868),  with  the  corrections  furnished  by  Rev.  C. 
Pritchard.  McClellan  ( New  Test.,  I.  402)  assumes  that  the  conjunction  of 
Jupiter  and  Saturn  was  premonitory  and  coincided  with  the  conception  of  the 
birth  of  John  the  Baptist,  Oct.  748,  and  that  Kepler’s  new  star  was  Messiah’s 
star  appearing  a year  later. 


§16.  CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  117 


sages  and  facts  bearing  on  that  subject.  They  are  reprinted  in  Dr.  Ch. 
Frisch’s  edition  of  his  Opera  Omnia  (Frcf.  et  Erlang.  1858-’70,  8 vols.), 
vol.  IY.  pp.  175  sqq.  ; 201  sqq. ; 279  sqq.  His  astronomical  observa- 
tions on  the  constellation  which  led  him  to  this  investigation  are  fully 
described  in  his  treatises  Be  Stella  Nova  in  Pede  Serpentarii  ( Opera,  vol. 
II.  575  sqq.),  and  Phenomenon  singulare  seu  Mercurius  in  Sole  ( ibid . II. 
801  sqq.).  Prof.  Ideler,  who  was  himself  an  astronomer  and  clironolo- 
gist,  in  his  Handbuch  dei'  mathemat.  und  technischen  Chronologie  (Berlin, 
1826,  vol.  II.  400  sqq.),  gives  the  following  clear  summary  of  Kepler’s 
and  of  his  own  observations  : 

“ It  is  usually  supposed  that  the  star  of  the  Magi  was,  if  not  a fiction  of 
the  imagination,  some  meteor  which  arose  accidentally,  or  ad  hoc.  We 
will  belong  neither  to  the  unbelievers  nor  the  hyper-believers  ( wedei*  zu 
den  Ungldubigen  noch  zu  den  Ueberglaubigen),  and  regard  this  starry  phe- 
nomenon with  Kepler  to  be  real  and  well  ascertainable  by  calculation, 
namely,  as  a conjunction  of  the  Planets  Jupiter  and  Saturn.  That  Matthew 
speaks  only  of  a star  ( dcrrrjp ),  not  a constellation  ( ao  rpov ),  need  not  trou- 
ble us,  for  the  two  words  are  not  unfrequently  confounded.  The  just 
named  great  astronomer,  who  was  wTell  acquainted  with  the  astrology  of 
his  and  former  times,  and  who  used  it  occasionally  as  a means  for  com- 
mending astronomy  to  the  attention  and  respect  of  the  laity,  first  con- 
ceived this  idea  when  he  observed  the  conjunction  of  the  two  planets 
mentioned  at  the  close  of  the  year  1603.  It  took  place  Dec.  17.  In  the 
spring  following  Mars  joined  their  company,  and  in  autumn  1604  still 
another  star,  one  of  those  fixed  star-like  bodies  {einer  jener  Jixstern-arti- 
gen  Korper ) which  grow  to  a considerable  degree  of  brightness,  and  then 
gradually  disappear  without  leaving  a trace  behind.  This  star  stood 
near  the  two  planets  at  the  eastern  foot  of  Serpentarius  (Schlangentragei') , 
and  appeared  when  last  seen  as  a star  of  the  first  magnitude  with  uncom- 
mon splendor.  From  month  to  month  it  waned  in  brightness,  and  at  the 
end  of  1605  was  withdrawn  from  the  eyes  which  at  that  time  could  not  yet 
be  aided  by  good  optical  instruments.  Kepler  wrote  a special  work  on  this 
Stella  nova  in  pede  Serpentarii  (Prague,  1606),  and  there  he  first  set  forth 
the  view  that  the  star  of  the  Magi  consisted  in  a conjunction  of  Saturn, 
Jupiter  and  some  other  extraordinary  star,  the  nature  of  which  he  does 
not  explain  more  fully.”  Ideler  then  goes  on  to  report  (p.  404)  that 
Kepler,  with  the  imperfect  tables  at  his  disposal,  discovered  the  same 
conjunction  of  Jupiter  and  Saturn  a.u.  747  in  June,  August  and  Decem- 
ber, in  the  sign  of  the  Pisces ; in  the  next  year,  February  and  March, 
Mars  was  added,  and  probably  another  extraordinary  star,  which  must 
have  excited  the  astrologers  of  Chaldaea  to  the  highest  degree.  They 
probably  saw  the  new  star  first,  and  then  the  constellation. 

Dr.  M (inter,  bishop  of  Seeland,  in  1821  directed  new  attention  to  this 
remarkable  discovery,  and  also  to  the  rabbinical  commentary  of  Abarbanel 
on  Daniel,  according  to  which  the  Jewish  astrologers  expected  a conjunc- 


118 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


fcion  of  the  planets  Jupiter  and  Saturn  in  the  sign  of  the  Pisces  before 
the  advent  of  the  Messiah,  and  asked  the  astronomers  to  reinvestigate 
this  point.  Since  then  Schubert  of  Petersburg  (1823),  Ideler  and  Encke 
of  Berlin  (1826  and  1830),  and  more  recently  Pritchard  of  London,  have 
verified  Kepler’s  calculations. 

Ideler  describes  the  result  of  his  calculation  (vol.  II.  405)  thus:  “I 
have  made  the  calculation  with  every  care.  . . . The  results  are 

sufficiently  remarkable.  Both  planets  [Jupiter  and  Saturn]  came  in 
conjunction  for  the  first  time  a.u.  747,  May  20,  in  the  20th  degree  of 
Pisces.  They  stood  then  on  the  heaven  before  sunrise  and  were  only 
one  degree  apart.  Jupiter  passed  Saturn  to  the  north.  In  the  middle 
of  September  both  came  in  opposition  to  the  sun  at  midnight  in  the 
south.  The  difference  in  longitude  was  one  degree  and  a half.  Both 
were  retrograde  and  again  approached  each  other.  On  the  27th  of  Octo- 
ber a second  conjunction  took  place  in  the  sixteenth  degree  of  the  Pisces, 
and  on  the  12th  of  November,  when  Jupiter  moved  again  eastward,  a 
third  in  the  fifteenth  degree  of  the  same  sign.  In  the  last  two  constella^ 
tions  also  the  difference  in  longitude  was  only  about  one  degree,  so  that 
to  a weak  eye  both  planets  might  appear  as  one  star.  If  the  Jewish 
astrologers  attached  great  expectations  to  a conjunction  of  the  two  upper 
planets  in  the  sign  of  the  Pisces,  this  one  must  above  all  have  appeared 
to  them  as  most  significant.” 

In  his  shorter  Lehrbuch  dei'  Chronologie , which  appeared  Berlin  1831  in 
one  vol.,  pp.  424-431,  Ideler  gives  substantially  the  same  account  some- 
what abridged,  but  with  slight  changes  of  the  figures  on  the  basis  of  a 
new  calculation  with  still  better  tables  made  by  the  celebrated  astrono- 
mer Encke,  who  puts  the  first  conjunction  of  Jupiter  and  Saturn  a.u. 
747,  May  29th,  the  second  Sept.  30th,  the  third  Dec.  5th.  See  the  full 
table  of  Encke,  p.  429. 

We  supplement  this  account  by  an  extract  from  an  article  on  the  Star 
of  the  Wise  Men,  by  the  Rev.  Charles  Pritchard,  M.A.,  Hon.  Secretary 
of  the  Royal  Astronomical  Society,  who  made  a fresh  calculation  of  the 
constellation  in  a.u.  747,  from  May  to  December,  and  published  the 
results  in  Memoirs  of  Royal  Ast.  Society , vol.  xxv.,  and  in  Smith’s  “Bible 
Dictionary,”  p.  3108,  Am.  ed.,  where  he  says:  “At  that  time  [end  of 
Sept.,  b.c.  7]  there  can  be  no  doubt  Jupiter  would  present  to  astrono 
mers,  especially  in  so  clear  an  atmosphere,  a magnificent  spectacle.  It 
was  then  at  its  most  brilliant  apparition,  for  it  was  at  its  nearest  approach 
both  to  the  sun  and  to  the  earth.  Not  far  from  it  would  be  seen  its 
duller  and  much  less  conspicuous  companion,  Saturn.  This  glorious 
spectacle  continued  almost  unaltered  for  several  days,  when  the  planets 
again  slowly  separated,  then  came  to  a halt,  when,  by  reassuming  a 
direct  motion,  Jupiter  again  approached  to  a conjunction  for  the  third 
time  with  Saturn,  just  as  the  Magi  may  be  supposed  to  have  entered  the 
Holy  City.  And,  to  complete  the  fascination  of  the  tale,  about  an  hour 


§ 16.  CHRONOLOGY  OF  TIIE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  119 


and  a half  after  sunset,  the  two  planets  might  be  seen  from  Jerusalem, 
hanging  as  it  were  in  the  meridian,  and  suspended  over  Bethlehem  in 
the  distance.  These  celestial  phenomena  thus  described  are,  it  will  be 
seen,  beyond  the  reach  of  question,  and  at  the  first  impression  they 
assuredly  appear  to  fulfil  the  conditions  of  the  Star  of  the  Magi.”  If 
Pritchard,  nevertheless,  rejects  the  identity  of  the  constellation  with  the 
single  star  of  Matthew,  it  is  because  of  a too  literal  understanding  of 
Matthew’s  language,  that  the  star  nporj-yev  avrovs  and  eardSy  eVai/co,  which 
would  make  it  miraculous  in  either  case. 

The  Fifteenth  Year  of  Tiberius. 

(3)  Luke,  ch.  3 : 1,  23,  gives  us  an  important  and  evidently 
careful  indication  of  the  reigning  powers  at  the  time  when 
John  the  Baptist  and  Christ  entered  upon  their  public  minis- 
try, which,  according  to  Levitical  custom,  was  at  the  age  of 
thirty.1  John  the  Baptist  began  his  ministry  “ in  the  fifteenth 
year  of  the  reign  of  Tiberius,” 2 and  Jesus,  who  was  only  about  six 
months  younger  than  John  (comp.  Luke  1 : 5,  26),  was  baptized 
and  began  to  teach  when  he  was  “ about  thirty  years  of  age.”  3 
Tiberius  began  to  reign  jointly  with  Augustus,  as  “ collega 
imperii,”  a.u.  764  (or,  at  all  events,  in  the  beginning  of  765), 
and  independently,  Aug.  19,  a.u.  767  (a.d.  14);  consequently, 
the  fifteenth  year  of  his  reign  was  either  a.u.  779,  if  we  count 
from  the  joint  reign  (as  Luke  probably  did,  using  the  more 
general  term  rjyefiovia  rather  than  fiovap^ia  or  ft aa Chela) ' or 

1 Comp.  Num.  4 : 3,  35,  39,  43,  47. 

2 In  the  new  revision  the  passage,  3 : 1,  2,  is  thus  translated  : “ Now  in 
the  fifteenth  year  of  the  reign  ( ^yepovias ) of  Tiberius  Caesar,  Pontius  Pilate 
being  governor  (TjyepovevovTos)  of  Judaea,  and  Herod  being  tetrarch  of  Galilee, 
and  his  brother  Philip  tetrarch  of  the  region  of  Ituraea  and  Trachonitis,  and 
Lysanias  tetrarch  of  Abilene,  in  the  high-priesthood  of  Annas  and  Caiaphas,  the 
word  of  God  came  unto  John  the  son  of  Zacharias  in  the  wilderness.”  The 
statement  must  have  been  quite  intelligible  to  the  educated  readers  of  that  time. 

3 The  different  interpretations  of  avrbs  apxdpeyos  wael  erwv  rpiaKovTa 
do  not  alter  the  result  much,  but  the  waCi  leaves  a margin  for  a few  months 
more  or  less.  Comp.  McClellan,  I.  404. 

4 He  uses  the  same  term  of  Pontius  Pilate  {riycpopcvovros).  Zumpt,  l.  c.  p. 

296,  says : Eigentlich  verstanden,  bezeichnet  riyepoyla  die  Wiirde  des  militar - 

isclien  Befehlshabers  und  des  Regrnten  iiber  die  Provinzen.  Hatte  Lucas  ‘ Au- 
gustus Kaiser  ’ (avTOKpdrcop)  oder  auch  nur  ‘ Herrscher  ’ (&pxw)  gesagt,  so 
wiirde  man  an  eine  Zdhlung  von  Tiberius ’ Provincialverwdltung  weniger  denken 
konnen .” 


120 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


782,  if  we  reckon  from  the  independent  reign  (as  was  the  usual 
Roman  method).1 

Now,  if  we  reckon  back  thirty  years  from  a.u.  779  or  782, 
we  come  to  a.u.  749  or  752  as  the  year  of  John’s  birth,  which 
preceded  that  of  Christ  about  six  months.  The  former  date 
(749)  is  undoubtedly  to  be  preferred,  and  agrees  with  Luke’s 
own  statement  that  Christ  was  born  under  Herod  (1  : 5,  26).3 

Dionysius  probably  (for  we  have  no  certainty  on  the  subject) 
calculated  from  the  independent  reign  of  Tiberius ; but  even 
that  would  not  bring  us  to  754,  and  would  involve  Luke  in 
contradiction  with  Matthew  and  with  himself.3 

The  other  dates  in  Luke  3 : 1 generally  agree  with  this  result, 


1 Different  modes  of  counting  were  not  unusual,  regarding  the  early  Ro- 
man emperors,  and  Herod  I.  See  above,  p.  112,  Zumpt,  l.  c.  282  sqq. , and 
Andrews,  p.  27.  Suetonius  (Tib.,  23)  and  Tacitus  ( Annal .,  vi.  51)  say  that 
Tiberius  died  in  the  23d  year  of  his  reign,  meaning  his  sole  reign  ; but  there 
are  indications  also  of  the  other  counting,  at  least  in  Egypt  and  the  provinces, 
where  the  authority  of  Tiberius  as  the  active  emperor  was  more  felt  than  in 
Rome.  There  are  coins  from  Antioch  in  Syria  of  the  date  A.  u.  765,  with  the 
head  of  Tiberius  and  the  inscription,  K cu<rap.  2 e £ a a r o s (Augustus).  In 
favor  of  the  computation  from  the  colleagueship  are  Ussher,  Bengel,  Lardner, 
Greswell,  Andrews,  Zumpt,  Wieseler,  McClellan ; in  favor  of  the  computation 
from  the  sole  reign  are  Lightfoot,  Ewald,  Browne.  Wieseler  formerly  held 
that  Luke  refers  to  the  imprisonment,  and  not  the  beginning  of  the  ministry,  of 
John,  but  he  changed  his  view ; see  his  art.  in  Herzog’s  “Encykl.,”  xxi.  547. 

2 Andrews,  l.  c.  p.  28,  thus  sums  up  his  investigations  upon  this  point: 
“We  find  three  solutions  of  the  chronological  difficulties  which  the  state- 
ments of  Luke  present : 1st.  That  the  15th  year  of  Tiberius  is  to  be  reck- 
oned from  the  death  of  Augustus,  and  extends  from  August,  781,  to  August, 
782.  In  this  year  the  Baptist,  whose  labors  began  some  time  previous,  was 
imprisoned  ; but  the  Lord’s  ministry  began  in  780,  before  this  imprisonment, 
and  when  he  was  about  thirty  years  of  age.  2d.  That  the  15th  year  is  to  be 
reckoned  from  the  death  of  Augustus,  but  that  the  statement,  the  Lord  was 
about  thirty  years  of  age,  is  to  be  taken  in  a large  sense,  and  that  he  may 
have  been  of  any  age  from  thirty  to  thirty-five  when  he  began  his  labors. 
3d.  That  the  15th  year  is  to  be  reckoned  from  the  year  when  Tiberius  was 
associated  with  Augustus  in  the  empire,  and  is  therefore  the  year  779.  In 
this  case  the  language,  ‘he  was  about  thirty,’  may  be  strictly  taken,  and 
the  statement,  ‘the  word  of  God  came  unto  John,’  may  be  referred  to  the 
beginning  of  his  ministry.  ” 

3 Hase  ( Oesch.  Jesu , p.  209)  strangely  defends  the  Dionysian  aera,  but 
sacrifices  the  date  of  Matthew,  together  with  the  whole  history  of  the  child' 
hood  of  Jesus.  Against  the  view  of  Keim  see  Schiirer,  p.  242. 


§ 16.  CHRONOLOGY  OF  TIIE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  121 


blit  are  less  definite.  Pontius  Pilate  was  ten  years  governor  of 
Judaea,  from  a.d.  26  to  36.  Herod  Antipas  was  deposed  by 
Caligula,  a.d.  39.  Philip,  his  brother,  died  a.d.  34.  Conse- 
quently, Christ  must  have  died  before  a.d.  34,  at  an  age  of 
thirty-three,  if  we  allow  three  years  for  his  public  ministry. 

The  Census  of  Quirinius. 

(4)  The  Census  of  Quirinius,  Luke,  ch.  2 : 2.1 *  Luke  gives  us 
another  chronological  date  by  the  incidental  remark  that  Christ 
was  born  about  the  time  of  that  census  or  enrolment,  which 
was  ordered  by  Caesar  Augustus,  and  which  was  “the  first 
[enrolment]  made  when  Quirinius  (Cyrenius)  was  governor 
of  Syria.” 3 He  mentions  this  fact  as  the  reason  for  the 
journey  of  Joseph  and  Mary  to  Bethlehem.  The  journey  of 
Mary  makes  no  difficulty,  for  (aside  from  the  intrinsic  pro- 
priety of  his  company  for  protection)  all  women  over  twelve 
years  of  age  (and  slaves  also)  were  subject  in  the  Poman  em- 
pire to  a head-tax,  as  well  as  men  over  fourteen,  till  the  age  of 

1 See  the  literature  till  1874  in  Schiirer,  p.  262,  who  devotes  24  pages  to 
this  subject.  The  most  important  writers  on  the  census  of  Quirinius  are 

Huschke  (a  learned  jurist,  in  2 treatises,  1840  and  1847),  Wieseler  (1843  and 
1869),  and  Zumpt  (1854  and  1869).  Comp,  also  the  article  “ Taxing,”  by  Dr. 
Plumptre.  supplemented  by  Dr.  Woolsey,  in  Smith’s  “Bible  Dictionary” 
(Hackett  and  Abbot’s  ed. ),  IV.  3185,  and  J.  B.  McClellan,  New  Test.<  I.  392. 

* This  is  the  proper  meaning  of  the  original  (according  to  the  last  text  of 
Tischendorf,  Westcott  and  Hort,  who  with  B D omit  the  article  tj)  : avrri 
airoypa(f))i  irpt&Tri  iyevtro  Tjyf/novfvovros  ri}s  'S.vpias  Kvpriviov.  Vulg.  : Hac  de- 
scriptio  prim  a facta  est  a prmide  Syria,  Cyrino.  The  English  version,  “ this 
taxing  was  first  made  when,”  is  ungrammatical,  and  would  require  -irpooTou  or 
irpura.  instead  of  irpwTT).  Luke  either  meant  to  say  that  there  was  no  previ- 
ous enrolment  in  Judaea,  or,  more  probably,  he  had  in  his  mind  a second  en- 
rolment made  under  Quirinius  at  his  second  governorship,  which  is  noticed  by 
him  in  Acts  5 : 37,  and  was  well  known  to  his  readers.  See  below.  Quirinius 
( Kvpvvios ) is  the  proper  spelling  (Strabo,  Josephus,  Tacitus,  Justin  M.) — 
not  Quirinus}  which  was  also  a Roman  name  ; hence  the  confusion.  (See 
Weiss,  in  the  6th  ed.  of  Meyer  on  Luke , p.  286.)  His  full  name  was  Publius 
Sulpicius  Quirinius  (Tacitus,  Annal,  iii.  48;  Suetonius,  Tiber. , 49).  He 
was  consul  A.  u.  742,  at  the  head  of  an  army  in  Africa,  747,  and  died  in  Rome, 
A.D.  21.  Josephus  speaks  of  him  at  the  close  of  the  17th  and  the  beginning 
of  the  18th  book  of  his  Archceol.  See  a full  account  of  him  in  Zumpt,  pp. 
43-71. 


122 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


sixty-five.1  There  is  some  significance  in  the  coincidence  of  the 
birth  of  the  King  of  Israel  with  the  deepest  humiliation  of  Israel, 
and  its  incorporation  in  the  great  historical  empire  of  Home. 

But  the  statement  of  Luke  seems  to  be  in  direct  conflict  with 
the  fact  that  the  governorship  and  census  of  Quirinius  began 
a.d.  6,  i.  e.,  ten  years  after  the  birth  of  Christ.3  Hence  many 
artificial  interpretations.3  But  this  difficulty  is  now,  if  not  en- 
tirely removed,  at  least  greatly  diminished  by  archaeological 
and  philological  research  independent  of  theology.  It  has  been 
proved  almost  to  a demonstration  by  Bergmann,  Mommsen, 
and  especially  by  Zumpt,  that  Quirinius  was  twice  governor  of 
Syria — first,  a.u.  750  to  753,  or  b.c.  4 to  1 (when  there  happens 
to  be  a gap  in  our  list  of  governors  of  Syria),  and  again,  a.u 
760-765  (a.d.  6-11).  This  double  legation  is  based  upon  a 
passage  in  Tacitus,4  and  confirmed  by  an  old  monumental  in- 

1 Ulpian,  quoted  by  Zumpt,  GeburUjahr  Christi , p.  203  sq. 

2 Josephus,  Antiqu . , xvii.  13,  5 ; xviii.  1,  1.  The  census  here  referred  to 
is  evidently  the  same  which  Luke  means  in  Acts  5:37:  “After  this  man 
arose  Judas  the  Galilsean  in  the  days  of  the  enrolment.”  Josephus  calls  him 
“ Judas,  a Gaulanite,”  because  he  was  of  Gamala  in  lower  Gaulanitis;  but  in 
Ant.,  xx.  5,  2,  and  Bell.  Jud.,  ii.  8,  1,  he  calls  him  likewise  a Galilaean.  In 
this  case,  then,  Luke  is  entirely  correct,  and  it  is  extremely  improbable  that 
a writer  otherwise  so  well  informed  as  Luke  should  have  confounded  two  en- 
rolments which  were  ten  years  apart. 

3 The  usual  solution  of  the  difficulty  is  to  give  v pArri  the  sense  of  ir poripz, 
before  Quirinius  was  governor ; as  icpwris  nvos  is  used  (though  not  in  connec- 
tion with  a participle)  in  the  sense  of  prior  to,  John  1 : 15,  30  ; 15  : 18.  So 
Ussher,  Huschke,  Tholuck,  Wieseler,  Caspari,  Ewald.  But  this  would  have 
been  more  naturally  and  clearly  expressed  by  irpiv  or  npb  rov  Tjyf/xoveveiv  (as  in 
Luke  2 : 21 ; 12:15;  Acts  23  : 15).  Paulus,  Ebrard,  Lange,  Godet,  and  others 
accentuate  avrh  (ipsa)  and  explain : The  decree  of  the  census  was  issued  at 
the  time  of  Christ’s  birth,  but  the  so-called  first  census  itself  did  not  take 
place  till  the  governorship  of  Quirinius  (ten  years  later).  Impossible  on 
account  of  ver.  3,  which  reports  the  execution  of  the  decree,  ver.  1.  Browne 
(p.  46)  and  others  understand  riyenovevciv  in  a wider  sense,  so  as  to  include  an 
extraordinary  commission  of  Quirinius  as  legatus  Caesar  is. 

4 Annal.y  iii.  48,  as  interpreted  by  A.  W.  Zumpt  in  a Latin  dissertation  . 
Be  Syria  Romanorum  provincia  ab  Ccesare  Augusto  ad  T.  Vespasianum,  in 
Comment.  Epigraph.,  Berol.  1854,  vol.  ii.  88-125,  and  approved  by  Mommsen 
in  Res  gestae  divi  Augusti,  121-124.  Zumpt  has  developed  his  views  more 
fully  in  Das  Qeburtsjahr  Chi'isti,  1869,  pp.  1-90.  Ussher,  Sanclemente,  Ideler 
(II.  397),  and  Browne  (p.  46)  had  understood  Tacitus  in  the  same  way. 


§16.  CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  123 


script.ion  discovered  between  the  Villa  Iladriani  and  the  Via 
Tiburtina.1  Hence  Luke  might  very  properly  call  the  census 
about  the  time  of  Christ’s  birth  “ the  first  ” (7 rpooTT])  under 
Quirinius,  to  distinguish  it  from  the  second  and  better  known, 
which  he  himself  mentions  in  his  second  treatise  on  the  his- 
tory of  the  origin  of  Christianity  (Acts  5 : 37).  Perhaps  the 
experience  of  Quirinius  as  the  superintendent  of  the  first  census 
was  the  reason  why  he  was  sent  to  Syria  a second  time  for  the 
same  purpose. 

There  still  remain,  however,  three  difficulties  not  easily 
solved : (a)  Quirinius  cannot  have  been  governor  of  Syria  be- 
fore autumn  a.u.  750  (b.c.  4),  several  months  after  Herod’s  death 
(which  occurred  in  March,  750),  and  consequently  after  Christ’s 
birth  ; for  we  know  from  coins  that  Quintilius  V arus  was  gover- 
nor from  a.u.  748  to  750  (b.c.  6-4),  and  left  his  post  after  the 
death  of  Herod.2  (b)  A census  during  the  first  governorship  of 
Quirinius  is  nowhere  mentioned  but  in  Luke,  (c)  A Syrian 
governor  could  not  well  carry  out  a census  in  Judaea  during  the 
lifetime  of  Herod,  before  it  was  made  a Homan  province  (i.  e., 
a.u.  759). 

In  reply  to  these  objections  we  may  say : (a)  Luke  did  not 
intend  to  give  an  exact,  but  only  an  approximate  chronological 
statement,  and  may  have  connected  the  census  with  the  well- 


1 First  published  at  Florence,  1765,  then  by  Sanclemente  (JDe  wig.  cerae 

Emendat.  Rom.  1793),  and  more  correctly  by  Bergmann  and  Mommsen  : Do 
inscriptions  Latina , ad  P.  Sulpicium  Quirinium  referenda , Berol.  1851. 
Mommsen  discussed  it  again  in  an  appendix  to  Res  gestoe  Augusti,  Berol.  1865, 
pp.  111-126.  The  inscription  is  defective,  and  reads  : “ . . . Pro.  Con- 

sul. Asiam.  Provinciam.  OP[tinuit  legatus].  Drvi.  Augustl  [i]terum 
[i.  e.,  again,  a second  time].  Syriam.  Et.  Ph[cenicem  administravit,  or, 
obtinuit].  The  name  is  obliterated.  Zumpt  refers  it  to  C.  Sentius  Satur- 
ninus  (who  preceded  Quirinius,  but  is  not  known  to  have  been  twice  governor 
of  Syria),  Bergmann,  Mommsen,  and  Merivale  to  Quirinius  (as  was  done  by 
Sanclemente  in  1793,  and  by  Ideler,  1826).  Nevertheless  Mommsen  denies 
any  favorable  bearing  of  the  discovery  on  the  solution  of  the  difficulty  in 
Luke,  while  Zumpt  defends  the  substantial  accuracy  of  the  evangelist. 

2 Josephus,  Antiqu .,  xvii.  11,  1;  Tacitus,  Hist.,  v.  9:  “ post  mw'tem 

Herodis  . . . Simo  quidam  regiwm  nomen  inraserat ; is  a Quintilio  Vare 

obtinente  Syriam  punitns”  etc. 


124 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A. D.  1-100. 


known  name  of  Quirinius  because  he  completed  it,  although  it  was 
begun  under  a previous  administration,  (b)  Augustus  ordered 
several  census  populi  between  a.u.  726  and  767,  partly  for  taxa- 
tion, partly  for  military  and  statistical  purposes ; 1 2 and,  as  a good 
statesman  and  financier,  he  himself  prepared  a rationarium  or 
breviarium  totius  imperii , that  is,  a list  of  all  the  resources 
of  the  empire,  which  was  read,  after  his  death,  in  the  Senate.8 
(c)  Herod  was  only  a tributary  king  ( rex  socius ),  who  could  exer- 
cise no  act  of  sovereignty  without  authority  from  the  emperor. 
Judaea  was  subject  to  taxation  from  the  time  of  Pompey,  and  it 
seems  not  to  have  ceased  with  the  accession  of  Ilerod.  More- 
over, towards  the  end  of  his  life  he  lost  the  favor  of  Augustus, 
who  wrote  him  in  anger  that  “ whereas  of  old  he  had  used  him 
as  his  friend,  he  would  now  use  him  as  his  subject.”  3 

It  cannot,  indeed,  be  proven  by  direct  testimony  of  Jose- 
phus or  the  Homan  historians,  that  Augustus  issued  a decree 
for  a universal  census,  embracing  all  the  Provinces  (“  that  all 
the  world,”  i.  e.,  the  Homan  world,  “ should  be  taxed,”  Luke 
2 : 1),  but  it  is  in  itself  by  no  means  improbable,  and  was  neces- 
sary to  enable  him  to  prepare  his  breviarium  totius  imperii .4 * * * 


1 Three  censuses,  held  A.U.  726.  748,  and  767,  are  mentioned  on  the  monu- 
ment of  Ancyra;  one  in  Italy,  757,  by  Dion  Cassius;  others  in  Gaul  are 
assigned  to  727,  741,  767  ; Tertullian,  who  was  a learned  lawyer,  speaks  of 
one  in  Judaea  under  Sentius  Saturninus,  A.u.  749;  and  this  would  be  the  one 
which  must  be  meant  by  Luke.  See  Gruter,  Huschke,  Zumpt,  Plumptre,  l.  c. 

2 Suetonius,  Aug.  28,  101;  Tacitus,  Annal .,  i.  11;  Dio  Cassius,  lii.  30; 
lvi.  33.  The  breviarium  contained,  according  to  Tacitus:  “ opes  publicce , 
quantum  civium  sociorumque  in  armis  [which  would  include  Herod],  quot 
classes , regna , provincice,  tributa  aut  vectigalia , et  necessitates  ac  largitiones. 
Quce  cuncta  sua  manu  perscripserat  Augustus,  addideratque  consilium  coer- 
cendi  intra  terminos  imperii,  incertum  metu  an  per  invidiam .” 

3 Joseph.  Ant.  xvi.  9,  § 4.  Comp.  Marquardt,  Rom.  Staatsverwaltung,  I.  249. 

4 Such  a decree  has  been  often  inferred  from  the  passages  of  Suetonius  and 

Tacitus  just  quoted.  The  silence  of  Josephus  is  not  very  difficult  to  explain, 
for  he  does  not  profess  to  give  a history  of  the  empire,  is  nearly  silent  on  the 
period  from  A.  u.  750-760,  and  is  not  as  impartial  a historian  as  Luke,  nor  wor- 

thy of  more  credit.  Cassiodorus  ( Variarum,  iii.  52)  and  Suidas  (s.  v.,  &iroypa<pv) 
expressly  assert  the  fact  of  a general  census,  and  add  several  particulars  which 

are  not  derived  from  Luke  ; e.  g.  Suidas  says  that  Augustus  elected  twenty 

commissioners  of  high  character  and  sent  them  to  all  parts  of  the  empire  to 


§ 16.  CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  125 


In  the  nature  of  the  case,  it  would  take  several  years  to  carry 
out  such  a decree,  and  its  execution  in  the  provinces  would  be 
modified  according  to  national  customs.  Zumpt  assumes  that 
Sentius  Saturninus,1  who  was  sent  as  governor  to  Syria  a.u.  746 
(b.c.  9),  and  remained  there  till  749  (b.c.  6),  began  a census  in 
Judaea  with  a view  to  substitute  a head  tax  in  money  for  the  for- 
mer customary  tribute  in  produce ; that  his  successor,  Quintilius 
Varus  (b.c.  6-4),  continued  it,  and  that  Quirinius  (b.c.  4)  com- 
pleted the  census.  This  would  explain  the  confident  statement 
of  Tertullian,  which  he  must  have  derived  from  some  good 
source,  that  enrolments  were  held  under  Augustus  by  Sentius 
Saturninus  in  Judaea.3  Another,  but  less  probable  view  is  that 
Quirinius  was  sent  to  the  East  as  special  commissioner  for  the 
census  during  the  administration  of  his  predecessor.  In  either 
case  Luke  might  call  the  census  “ the  first  ” under  Quirinius, 
considering  that  he  finished  the  census  for  personal  taxation  or 
registration  according  to  the  Jewish  custom  of  family  registers, 
and  that  afterwards  he  alone  executed  the  second  census  for  the 
taxation  of  property  according  to  the  Roman  fashion. 

The  problem  is  not  quite  solved ; but  the  establishment  of 
the  fact  that  Quirinius  was  prominently  connected  with  the 
Roman  government  in  the  East  about  the  time  of  the  Rativity, 
is  a considerable  step  towards  the  solution,  and  encourages  the 
hope  of  a still  better  solution  in  the  future.3 


collect  statistics  of  population  as  well  as  of  property,  and  to  return  a portion 
to  the  national  treasury.  Hence  Huschke,  Wieseler,  Zumpt,  Plumptre  aud 
McClellan  accept  their  testimony  as  historically  correct  (while  Schiirer  derives 
it  simply  from  Luke,  without  being  able  to  account  for  these  particulars). 
Wieseler  quotes  also  John  Malala,  the  historian  of  Antioch,  as  saying,  probably 
on  earlier  authorities,  that  “Augustus,  in  the  39th  year  and  10th  month  of  his 
reign  [i.  e.  b.c.  5 or  6],  issued  a decree  for  a general  registration  throughout 
the  empire.”  Julius  Caesar  had  begun  a measurement  of  the  whole  empire, 
and  Augustus  completed  it. 

1 Not  to  be  confounded  with  L.  Yolusius  Saturninus,  who  is  known,  from 
coins,  to  have  been  governor  of  Syria  A.u.  758  (a.d.  4). 

2 Adv.  Marc . iv.  19 : “ Sed  et  census  constat  aclos  sub  Augusto  tunc  in  Judaea 
per  Sentium  Saturninum , a/pud  quos  genus  ejus  inquirere  potuissent” 

3 Zumpt,  the  classical  scholar  and  archaeologist,  concludes  (p.  223)  that  there 
is  nothing  in  Luke’s  account  which  does  not  receive,  from  modem  research, 


126 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


The  Forty-six  Years  of  the  Building  of  Herod’s  Temple. 

(5)  St.  John,  ch.  2 : 20,  furnishes  us  a date  in  the  remark  of 
the  Jews,  in  the  first  year  of  Christ’s  ministry : “ Forty  and  six 
years  was  this  temple  in  building,  and  wilt  thou  raise  it  up  in 
three  days  ? ” 

We  learn  from  Josephus  that  Herod  began  the  reconstruction 
of  the  temple  in  Jerusalem  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  his  reign, 
i.  e.,  A.u.  732,  if  we  reckon  from  his  appointment  by  the  Romans 
(714),  or  a.u.  735,  if  we  reckon  from  the  death  of  Antigonus 
and  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem  (71 7). 1 The  latter  is  the  correct 
view;  otherwise  Josephus  would  contradict  himself,  since,  in 
another  passage,  he  dates  the  building  from  the  fifteenth  year 
of  Herod’s  reign.3  Adding  forty-six  years  to  735,  wre  have  the 
year  a.u.  781  (a.d.  27)  for  the  first  year  of  Christ’s  ministry; 
and  deducting  thirty  and  a half  or  thirty-one  years  from  781,  we 
come  back  to  a.u.  750  (b.c.  4)  as  the  year  of  the  Nativity. 

The  Time  of  the  Crucifixion. 

(6)  Christ  was  crucified  under  the  consulate  of  the  two  Gem! 
ni  (i.  e.,  C.  Rubellius  Geminus  and  C.  Fufius  Geminus),  who 
were  consuls  a.u.  782  to  783  (a.d.  28  to  29).  This  statement  is 
made  by  Tertullian,  in  connection  with  an  elaborate  calculation 
of  the  time  of  Christ’s  birth  and  passion  from  the  seventy  wreeks 

“full  historical  probability”  (“voile  historische  Wahrschcinlichkeit'') ; while 
Schiirer,  the  theologian,  still  doubts  (Matt.  28 : 17).  Dr.  Woolsey  ( s . v. 
“ Cyrenius,”  in  “Smith’s  Bible  Diet.,”  Hackett  and  Abbot’s  ed.,  p.  526), 
decides  that  “something  is  gained.”  In  the  art.  “Taxing”  he  says  that  a 
registration  of  Judaea  made  under  the  direction  of  the  president  of  Syria 
by  Jewish  officers  would  not  greatly  differ  from  a similar  registration  made 
by  Herod,  and  need  not  have  alarmed  the  Jews  if  carefully  managed. 

1 Antiqu.  xv.  11,  1 : “And  now  Herod,  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  his  reign 
(oKT(DKai5iKarov  rrjs  'H pwSov  fiaai\eias  iviaurov)  . . . undertook  a very  great  work, 
that  is,  to  build  of  himself  the  temple  of  God,  and  to  raise  it  to  a most  mag- 
nificent altitude,  as  esteeming  it  to  be  the  most  glorious  of  all  his  actions,  as 
it  really  was,  to  bring  it  to  perfection,  and  that  this  would  be  sufficient  for  an 
everlasting  memorial  of  him.” 

2 Bell.  Jua  I.  21,  1,  tt*vt (KatSiKdrcp  irti  rfjs  fia<ri\tias  avrbv  Si  rbv  vah< 
Arco’fcc&urc. 


§ 16.  CHRONOLOGY  OF  TIIE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  127 


of  Daniel.1  He  may  possibly  have  derived  it  from  some  public 
record  in  Rome.  He  erred  in  identifying  the  year  of  Christ’s 
passion  with  the  first  year  of  his  ministry  (the  15th  year  of 
Tiberius,  Luke  3 : 1).  Allowing,  as  we  must,  two  or  three  years 
for  his  public  ministry,  and  thirty-three  years  for  his  life,  we 
reach  the  year  750  or  749  as  the  year  of  the  Nativity. 

Thus  we  arrive  from  these  various  incidental  notices  of  three 
Evangelists,  and  the  statement  of  Tertullian  essentially  at  the 
same  conclusion,  which  contributes  its  share  towards  establishing 
the  credibility  of  the  gospel  history  against  the  mythical  theory. 
Yet  in  the  absence  of  a jyrecise  date,  and  in  view  of  uncertain- 
ties in  calculation,  there  is  still  room  for  difference  of  opinion 
between  the  years  a.u.  747  (b.c.  7),  as  the  earliest,  and  a.u.  750 
(b.c.  4),  as  the  latest,  possible  date  for  the  year  of  Christ’s  birth. 
The  French  Benedictines,  Sanclemente,  Miinter,  Wurm,  Ebrard, 
Jarvis,  Alford,  Jos.  A.  Alexander,  Zumpt,  Iveim,  decide  for  a.u. 
747 ; Kepler  (reckoning  from  the  conjunction  of  Jupiter,  Saturn 
and  Mars  in  that  year),  Lardner,  Ideler,  E wald,  for  7 48  ; Peta- 
vius,  Ussher,  Tillemont,  Browne,  Angus,  Robinson,  Andrews, 
McClellan,  for  749 ; Bengel,  Wieseler,  Lange,  Lichtenstein,  An- 
ger, Greswell,  Ellicott,  Plumptre,  Merivale,  for  750. 

II.  The  Day  of  the  Nativity. — The  only  indication  of  the 
season  of  our  Saviour’s  birth  is  the  fact  that  the  Shepherds 
were  watching  their  flocks  in  the  field  at  that  time,  Luke  2 : 8. 
This  fact  points  to  any  other  season  rather  than  winter,  and  is 
therefore  not  favorable  to  the  traditional  date,  though  not  conclu- 
sive against  it.  The  time  of  pasturing  in  Palestine  (which  has 

1 Adv.  Jud.  c.  8:  “Hums  [Tiberii]  quinto  decimo  anno  imperii  passus  est 
Chi'istus , annos  habens  quasi  triginta,  cum  pateretur  ....  Quce  passio  huius 
exterminii  intra  tempora  LXX  liebdomadarum  perfecta  est  sub  Tiberio  Ccesare , 
consdlibus  Rubellio  Gemino  et  Fufio  Gemino,  mense  Martio,  temporibus 
paschce , die  VIII  Kalendarum  Aprilium,  die  prima  azymorum,  quo  agnum  occi- 
derunt  ad  vesper  am,  sicuti  a Moyse  fuerat  prceceptum .”  Lactantius  ( De  Mort. 
Persec.  2 ; De  Vera  Sap.  10)  and  Augustine  make  the  same  statement  (De 
Chit.  Dei,  L xviii.  c.  54 : “ Mortuus  est  Christus  duobus  Geminis  Consulibus, 
octavo  Kalendas  Aprilis  ”).  Zumpt  assigns  much  weight  to  this  tradition,  pp. 
268  sqq. 


128 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


but  two  seasons,  the  dry  and  the  wet,  or  summer  and  winter) 
begins,  according  to  the  Talmudists,  in  March,  and  lasts  till 
November,  when  the  herds  are  brought  in  from  the  fields,  and 
kept  under  shelter  till  the  close  of  February.  But  this  refers 
chiefly  to  pastures  in  the  wilderness,  far  away  from  towns  and 
villages,1  and  admits  of  frequent  exceptions  in  the  close  neighbor- 
hood of  towns,  according  to  the  character  of  the  season.  A suc- 
cession of  bright  days  in  December  and  January  is  of  frequent 
occurrence  in  the  East,  as  in  Western  countries.  Tobler,  an 
experienced  traveller  in  the  Holy  Land,  says  that  in  Bethlehem 
the  weather  about  Christmas  is  favorable  to  the  feeding  of  flocks 
and  often  most  beautiful.  On  the  other  hand  strong  and  cold 
winds  often  prevail  in  April,  and  explain  the  fire  mentioned  J ohn 
18:18. 

No  certain  conclusion  can  be  drawn  from  the  journey  of 
Joseph  and  Mary  to  Bethlehem,  and  to  Egypt ; nor  from  the 
journey  of  the  Magi.  As  a rule  February  is  the  best  time 
for  travelling  in  Egypt,  March  the  best  in  the  Sinaitic  Penin- 
sula, April  and  May,  and  next  to  it  autumn,  the  best  in  Pales- 
tine ; but  necessity  knows  no  rule. 

The  ancient  tradition  is  of  no  account  here,  as  it  varied  down 
to  the  fourth  century.  Clement  of  Alexandria  relates  that  some 
regarded  the  25th  Pachon  (i.  e.  May  20),  others  the  24th  or  25th 
Pharmuthi  (April  19  or  20),  as  the  day  of  Nativity. 

(1)  The  traditional  25th  of  December  is  defended  by  Jerome, 
Chrysostom,  Baronius,  Lamy,  Ussher,  Petavius,  Bengel  (Ideler), 
Seyffarth  and  Jarvis.  It  has  no  historical  authority  beyond  the 
fourth  century,  when  the  Christmas  festival  was  introduced  first 
in  Rome  (before  a.d.  360),  on  the  basis  of  several  Roman  festi- 
vals (the  Saturnalia , Sigillaria , Juvenalia,  Brumalia , or  Dies 
natalis  Invicti  Solis),  which  were  held  in  the  latter  part  of  De- 
cember in  commemoration  of  the  golden  age  of  liberty  and 
equality,  and  in  honor  of  the  sun,  who  in  the  winter  solstice  is, 
as  it  were,  born  anew  and  begins  his  conquering  march.  This 

1 As  in  Switzerland  the  herds  are  driven  to  the  mountain  pastures  in  May 
and  brought  home  in  August  or  September. 


§ 10.  CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  129 


phenomenon  in  nature  was  regarded  as  an  appropriate  symbol  of 
the  appearance  of  the  Sun  of  Righteousness  dispelling  the  long 
night  of  sin  and  error.  For  the  same  reason  the  summer  sol- 
stice (June  24)  was  afterwards  selected  for  the  festival  of  John 
the  Baptist,  as  the  fittest  reminder  of  his  own  humble  self-esti- 
mate that  he  must  decrease,  while  Christ  must  increase  (John 
3 : 30).  Accordingly  the  25th  of  March  was  chosen  for  the 
commemoration  of  the  Annunciation  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and 
the  24th  of  September  for  that  of  the  conception  of  Elizabeth.1 

(2)  The  6th  of  January  has  in  its  favor  an  older  tradition  (ac- 
cording to  Epiplianius  and  Cassianus),  and  is  sustained  by  Euse- 
bius. It  was  celebrated  in  the  East  from  the  third  century  as 
the  feast  of  the  Epiphany,  in  commemoration  of  the  Nativity 
as  well  as  of  Christ’s  baptism,  and  afterwards  of  his  manifesta- 
tion to  the  Gentiles  (represented  by  the  Magi). 

(3)  Other  writers  have  selected  some  day  in  February  (Hug, 
Wieseler,  Ellicott),  or  March  (Paulus,  Winer),  or  April  (Gres- 
well),  or  August  (Lewin),  or  September  (Lightfoot,  who  assumes, 
on  chronological  grounds,  that  Christ  was  born  on  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles,  as  he  died  on  the  Passover  and  sent  the  Spirit  on 
Pentecost),  or  October  (Newcome).  Lardner  puts  the  birth  be- 
tween the  middle  of  August  and  the  middle  of  November; 
Browne  December  8 ; Lichtenstein  in  summer ; Bobinson  leaves 
it  altogether  uncertain. 

III.  The  Duration  of  Christ’s  Life. — This  is  now  generally 
confined  to  thirty-two  or  three  years.  The  difference  of  one  or 
two  years  arises  from  the  different  views  on  the  length  of  his 
public  ministry.  Christ  died  and  rose  again  in  the  full  vigor 
of  early  manhood,  and  so  continues  to  live  in  the  memory  of  the 
church.  The  decline  and  weakness  of  old  age  is  inconsistent  with 
his  position  as  the  Renovator  and  Saviour  of  mankind. 

Irenseus,  otherwise  (as  a disciple  of  Polycarp,  who  was  a dis- 

1 The  latest  learned  advocate  of  the  traditional  date  is  John  Brown  McClel- 
lan, who  tries  to  prove  that  Christ  was  bom  Dec.  25,  A.u.  749  (B.c.  5).  See 
his  New  Test.,  etc.  vol.  I.  390  sqq. 


130 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


ciple  of  St.  John)  the  most  trustworthy  witness  of  apostolic  tra- 
ditions among  the  fathers,  held  the  untenable  opinion  that 
Christ  attained  to  the  ripe  age  of  forty  or  fifty  years  and  taught 
over  ten  years  (beginning  with  the  thirtieth),  and  that  he  thus 
passed  through  all  the  stages  of  human  life,  to  save  and  sanctify 
“old  men”  as  well  as  “infants  and  children  and  boys  and 
youths.” 1 He  appeals  for  this  view  to  tradition  dating  from 
St.  John,2  and  supports  it  by  an  unwarranted  inference  from 
the  loose  conjecture  of  the  Jews  when,  surprised  at  the  claim  of 
Jesus  to  have  existed  before  Abraham  was  born,  they  asked 
him : “ Thou  art  not  yet  fifty  years  old,  and  hast  thou  seen 
Abraham  ? ” 3 4 A similar  inference  from  another  passage,  where 
the  Jews  speak  of  the  “forty-six  years”  since  the  temple  of 
Herod  began  to  be  constructed,  while  Christ  spoke  of  the  temple 
his  body  (John  2 : 20),  is  of  course  still  less  conclusive. 

IV.  Duration  of  Christ’s  Public  Ministry. — It  began  with 
the  baptism  by  John  and  ended  with  the  crucifixion.  About 
the  length  of  the  intervening  time  there  are  (besides  the  isolated 
and  decidedly  erroneous  view  of  Irenseus)  three  theories,  allow- 
ing respectively  one,  two,  or  three  years  and  a few  months,  and 
designated  as  the  bipaschal,  tripaschal,  and  quadripaschal  schemes, 
according  to  the  number  of  Passovers.  The  Synoptists  mention 
only  the  last  Passover  during  the  public  ministry  of  our  Lord, 
at  which  he  was  crucified,  but  they  intimate  that  he  was  in 
Judaea  more  than  once/  John  certainly  mentions  three  Passo- 

1 Adv.  Hcer.  II.  c.  22,  § 4-6. 

2 This  shows  conclusively  how  uncertain  patristic  traditions  are  as  to  mere 
facts. 

3 John  8 : 57.  Irenaeus  reasons  that  the  Jews  made  the  nearest  approach 
to  the  real  age,  either  from  mere  observation  or  from  knowledge  of  the  pub- 
lic records,  and  thus  concludes  • “ Christ  did  not  therefore  preach  only  for  one 
year,  nor  did  he  suffer  in  the  twelfth  month  of  the  year;  for  the  period  included 
between  the  thirtieth  and  the  fiftieth  year  can  never  be  regarded  as  one 
year,  unless  indeed,  among  their  aeons  [he  speaks  of  the  Gnostics]  there  be 
such  long  years  assigned  to  those  who  sit  in  their  ranks  with  Bythos  in  the 
Pleroma.” 

4 Comp.  Matt.  4:12;  23  : 37;  Mark  1:14;  Luke  4:14;  10:38;  13  : 34. 


§ 16.  CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  131 


overs,  two  of  which  (the  first  and  the  last)  Christ  did  attend,’ 
and  perhaps  a fourth,  which  he  also  attended.’ 

(1)  The  bipaschal  scheme  confines  the  public  ministry  to  one 
year  and  a few  weeks  or  months.  This  was  first  held  by  the 
Gnostic  sect  of  the  Valentinians  (who  connected  it  with  their 
fancy  about  thirty  aeons),  and  by  several  fathers,  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  Tertullian,  and  perhaps  by  Origen  and  Augustine 
(who  express  themselves  doubtfully).  The  chief  argument  of  the 
fathers  and  those  harmonists  who  follow  them,  is  derived  from 
the  prophecy  of  “ the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord,”  as  quoted 
by  Christ,’  and  from  the  typical  meaning  of  the  paschal  lamb, 
which  must  be  of  “ one  year”  and  without  blemish.1 * 3 4 *  Far  more 
important  is  the  argument  drawn  by  some  modern  critics  from 
the  silence  of  the  synoptical  Gospels  concerning  the  other  Passo- 
vers.6 * But  this  silence  is  not  in  itself  conclusive,  and  must  yield  to 
the  positive  testimony  of  John,  which  cannot  be  conformed  to  the 
bipaschal  scheme.8  Moreover,  it  is  simply  impossible  to  crowd 
the  events  of  Christ’s  life,  the  training  of  the  Twelve,  and  the 
development  of  the  hostility  of  the  Jews,  into  one  short  year. 

(2)  The  choice  therefore  lies  between  the  tripaschal  and  the 
quadripaschal  schemes.  The  decision  depends  chiefly  on  the 
interpretation  of  the  unnamed  “feast  of  the  Jews,”  John  5 : 1, 
whether  it  was  a Passover,  or  another  feast ; and  this  again  de- 
pends much  (though  not  exclusively)  on  a difference  of  reading 

1 John  2 : 13,  23  ; 6:4;  11:55;  12:1;  13  : 1.  The  Passover  mentioned 
6 : 4 Christ  did  not  attend,  because  the  Jews  sought  to  kid  him  (7:1;  comp. 
5:  18). 

5 John  5 : 1 if  we  read  the  article  rj  before  coprl)  r wv  ’lovtiaiuv.  See 
below. 

3 Isa.  61  : 2 ; comp.  Luke  4 : 14. 

4 Exod.  12:5.  6 Keim,  I.  130. 

* Henry  Browne  who,  in  his  Ordo  Sceclorum  (pp.  80  sqq.),  likewise  defends 

the  one  year’s  ministry,  in  part  by  astronomical  calculations,  is  constrained 
to  eliminate  without  any  MSS.  authority  rb  vaaxa  from  John  6 : 4,  and  to 
make  the  iopr-fi  there  mentioned  to  be  the  same  as  that  in  7 : 2,  so  that 
John  would  give  the  feasts  of  one  year  only,  in  regular  chronological  order, 
namely,  the  Passover  2:13  in  March,  the  Pentecost  5 : 1 in  May,  the  Feast 

of  Tabernacles  6:4;  7:2  in  September,  the  Feast  of  Dedication  10 : 22  in 

December,  the  Passover  of  the  Crucifixion  in  March. 


132 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


(the  feast,  or  a feast).1  The  parable  of  the  barren  fig-tree,  which 
represents  the  Jewish  people,  has  been  used  as  an  argument  in 
favor  of  a three  years’  ministry : “ Behold,  these  three  years  I 
come  seeking  fruit  on  this  fig-tree,  and  find  none.” 2 The  three 
years  are  certainly  significant ; but  according  to  Jewish  reckon- 
ing two  and  a half  years  would  be  called  three  years.  More 
remote  is  the  reference  to  the  prophetic  announcement  of  Daniel 
9:27:  “ And  he  shall  confirm  the  covenant  with  many  for  one 
week,  and  in  the  midst  of  the  week  he  shall  cause  the  sacrifice 
and  the  oblation  to  cease.”  The  tripaschal  theory  is  more  easily 
reconciled  with  the  synoptical  Gospels,  while  the  quadripasehal 
theory  leaves  more  room  for  arranging  the  discourses  and  mira- 
cles of  our  Lord,  and  has  been  adopted  by  the  majority  of  har- 
monists.3 

But  even  if  we  extend  the  public  ministry  to  three  years,  it 
presents  a disproportion  between  duration  and  effect  without  a 
parallel  in  history  and  inexplicable  on  purely  natural  grounds. 
In  the  language  of  an  impartial  historian,  “ the  simple  record 
of  three  short  years  of  active  life  has  done  more  to  regenerate 

1 The  definite  article  before  “ feast  ” (?)  eopr^fi),  which  is  supported  by  the 
Sinaitic  MS.  and  adopted  by  Tischendorf  (ed.  viii.),  favors  the  view  that  the 
feast  was  the  Passover,  the  great  feast  of  the  Jews.  The  reading  without  the 
article,  which  has  the  weight  of  the  more  critical  Vatican  MS. , and  is  pre- 
ferred by  Lachmann,  Tregelles,  Westcott  and  Hort,  and  by  the  Revision  of 
the  E.  V.,  favors  the  view  that  it  was  Pentecost,  or  Purim,  or  some  other  sub- 
ordinate feast.  (On  the  grammatical  question  comp.  Thayer’s  Winer,  p.  125, 
and  Moulton’s  Winer,  p.  155. ) In  all  other  passages  John  gives  the  name  of  the 
feast  (t&  Trdaxa  2 : 13  ; 6 : 4 ; 11 : 55  ; 77  oK-qvoir^yia  7:2;  r&  iyKaivia  10  : 22).  It 
is  objected  that  Jesus  would  not  be  likely  to  attend  the  patriotic  and  secular 
feast  of  Purim,  which  was  not  a temple  feast  and  required  no  journey  to 
Jerusalem,  while  he  omitted  the  next  Passover  (John  6 : 4)  which  was  of 
divine  appointment  and  much  more  solemn  ; but  the  objection  is  not  conclu- 
sive, since  he  attended  other  minor  festivals  (John  7:2;  10  : 22)  merely  for 
the  purpose  of  doing  good. 

2 Luke  13:6-9.  Bengel,  Hengstenberg,  Wieseler,  Weizsacker,  Alford, 
Wordsworth,  Andrews,  McClellan. 

3 By  Eusebius  {H.  E .,  I.  10),  Theodoret  ( in  Dan.  ix.),  Robinson,  Andrews, 
McClellan,  Gardiner,  and  many  others.  On  the  other  hand  Jerome,  Wieseler, 
and  Tischendorf  hold  the  tripaschal  theory.  Jerome  says  (on  Isaiah,  ch.  29,  in 
Migne’s  ed.  of  the  Opera , IV.  330) : “ Scriptum  est  in  Evangelio  secundum  Joan* 
nem,  per  tria  Pascha  Dominum  venisse  in  Jerusalem , qua  duos  annos  efficiunt 


§ 1G.  CIIEONOLOGY  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  183 


and  soften  mankind  than  all  the  disquisitions  of  philosophers 
and  all  the  exhortations  of  moralists.  This  has  indeed  been  the 
wellspring  of  whatever  is  best  and  purest  in  the  Christian  life.”  1 

V.  Tiie  Date  of  tiie  Lord’s  Death. — The  day  of  the  week 
on  which  Christ  suffered  on  the  cross  was  a Friday,2  during  the 
week  of  the  Passover,  in  the  month  of  Is  isan,  which  was  the  first 
of  the  twelve  lunar  months  of  the  Jewish  year,  and  included  the 
vernal  equinox.  But  the  question  is  whether  this  Friday  was 
the  14tli,  or  the  15th  of  Nisan,  that  is,  the  day  before  the  feast  or 
the  first  day  of  the  feast,  which  lasted  a week.  The  Synoptical 
Gospels  clearly  decide  for  the  15th,  for  they  all  say  (indepen- 
dently) that  our  Lord  partook  of  the  paschal  supper  on  the  legal 
day,  called  the  “ first  day  of  unleavened  bread,”  3 that  is  on  the 
evening  of  the  14th,  or  rather  at  the  beginning  of  the  15th  (the 
paschal  lambs  being  slain  “ between  the  two  evenings,”  i.  e.  be- 
fore and  after  sunset,  between  3 and  5 p.m.  of  the  14tli).  4 John, 
on  the  other  hand,  seems  at  first  sight  to  point  to  the  14tli,  so 
tiiat  the  death  of  our  Lord  would  very  nearly  have  coincided  with 
the  slaying  of  the  paschal  lamb.6  But  the  three  or  four  passages 
which  look  in  that  direction  can,  and,  on  closer  examination,  must 

1 W.  E.  H.  Lecky : History  of  European  Morals  from  Augustus  to  Charle- 
magne (1869)  vol.  II.  p.  9.  He  adds:  “Amid  all  the  sins  and  failings,  amid 
all  the  priestcraft  and  persecution  and  fanaticism  that  have  defaced  the  Church, 
it  has  preserved,  in  the  character  and  example  of  its  Founder,  an  enduring 
principle  of  regeneration.” 

2 Mark  15  : 42 ; Matt.  27:62;  Luke  23:54;  John  19  : 14.  Friday  is  called 
Preparation-day  (napao-Kew'i ),  because  the  meals  for  the  Sabbath  were  prepared 
on  the  sixth  day,  as  no  fires  were  allowed  to  be  kindled  on  the  Sabbath  (Ex. 
16  : 5). 

3 Matt.  26  : 17,  20 ; Mark  14:12;  Luke  22  : 7,  15.  Comp.  John  18  : 39,  40. 

4 Ex.  12:6;  Lev.  23  : 5 ; Num.  9 : 3,  5.  If  the  phrase  “between  the  two 

evenings  ” ) could  be  taken  to  mean  between  the  evening  of  the 

14th  and  the  evening  of  the  15th  of  Nisan,  we  should  have  twenty-four  hours  for 
the  slaying  and  eating  of  the  paschal  lambs,  and  the  whole  difficulty  between 
John  and  the  Synoptists  would  disappear.  We  could  easier  conceive  also  the 
enormous  number  of  270,000  lambs  which,  according  to  the  statement  of 
Josephus,  had  to  be  sacrificed.  But  that  interpretation  is  excluded  by  the 
fact  that  the  same  express'on  is  used  in  the  rules  about  the  daily  evening 
sacrifice  (Ex.  29 : 39,  41  ; Num.  28  : 4). 

6 John  13  : 1 ; 13:29;  18:28;  19:14, 


134 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


be  harmonized  with  the  Synoptical  statement,  which  admits  only 
of  one  natural  interpretation.1  It  seems  strange,  indeed,  that 

1 John  13:1  “ before  the  feast  of  the  Passover  ” does  not  mean  a day  before 
(which  would  have  been  so  expressed,  comp.  12 : 1),  but  a short  time  before, 
and  refers  to  the  commencement  of  the  15th  of  Nisan.  The  passage,  13  : 29 : 
“ Buy  what  things  we  have  need  of  for  the  feast,”  causes  no  difficulty  if  we 
remember  that  Jesus  sat  down  with  his  disciples  before  the  regular  hour  of 
the  Passover  (13  : 1),  so  that  there  was  time  yet  for  the  necessary  purchases. 
The  passage  on  the  contrary  affords  a strong  argument  against  the  supposition 
that  the  supper  described  by  John  took  place  a full  day  before  the  Passover; 
for  then  there  would  have  been  no  need  of  such  haste  for  purchases  as  the 
apostles  understood  Christ  to  mean  when  he  said  to  Judas,  “ That  thou  doest, 
do  quickly  ” (13  : 27).  In  John  18  : 28  it  is  said  that  the  Jews  went  not  into  the 
Praetorium  of  the  heathen  Pilate  “ that  they  might  not  be  defiled,  but  might 
eat  the  Passover;  ” but  this  was  said  early  in  the  morning,  at  about  3 a.m.,  when 
the  regular  paschal  meal  was  not  yet  finished  in  the  city;  others  take  the  word 
“Passover”  here  in  an  unusual  sense  so  as  to  embrace  the  chagigah  or 

festive  thank-offerings  during  the  Passover  week,  especially  on  the  fifteenth  day 
of  Nisan  (comp.  2 Chr.  30  : 22)  ; at  all  events  it  cannot  apply  to  the  paschal 
supper  on  the  evening  of  the  fifteenth  of  Nisan,  for  the  defilement  would  have 
ceased  after  sunset , and  could  therefore  have  been  no  bar  to  eating  the  paschal 
supper  (Lev.  15:1-18;  22:1-7).  “The  Preparation  of  the  Passover,”  ^ 
irapacTKev}]  rod  ira<rxa,  19 : 14,  is  not  the  day  preceding  the  Passover  ( Passover - 
Eve),  but,  as  clearly  in  vers.  31  and  42,  the  Preparation  day  of  the  Passover  week, 
i.  e.  the  Paschal  Friday ; ir apaaKewfi  being  the  technical  term  for  Friday  as  the 
preparation  day  for  the  Sabbath,  the  fore-Sabbath,  Trpoffdp&arov,  Mark  15  : 42 
(comp,  the  German  Sonnabend  for  Saturday,  Sabbath-eve,  etc.).  For  a fuller 
examination  of  the  respective  passages,  see  my  edition  of  Lange  on  Matthew 
(pp.  454  sqq.),  and  on  John  (pp.  406,  415,  562,  569).  Lightfoot,  Wieseler,  Lich- 
tenstein, Hengstenberg,  Ebrard  (in  the  third  ed.  of  his  Kritih , 1868),  Lange, 
Kirchner,  Keil,  Robinson,  Andrews,  Milligan,  Plumptre  and  McClellan  take 
the  same  view;  while  Liicke,  Bleek,  DeWette,  Meyer,  Ewald,  Stier,  Bey- 
echlag,  Greswell,  Ellicott,  Farrar,  Mansel  and  Westcott  maintain  that  Christ 
was  crucified  on  the  fourteenth  of  Nisan,  and  either  assume  a contradiction  be- 
tween John  and  the  Synoptists  (which  in  this  case  seems  quite  impossible),  or 
transfer  the  paschal  supper  of  Christ  to  the  preceding  day,  contrary  to  law  and 
custom.  John  himself  clearly  points  to  the  fifteenth  of  Nisan  as  the  day  of  the 
crucifixion,  when  he  reports  that  the  customary  release  of  a prisoner  “ at  the 
Passover”  (iv  r<j5  ird<rxa)  was  granted  by  Pilate  on  the  day  of  crucifixion,  18  : 39, 
40.  The  critical  and  cautious  Dr.  Robinson  says  ( Haimony , p.  222)  : “After 
repeated  and  calm  consideration,  there  rests  upon  my  own  mind  a clear  convic- 
tion, that  there  is  nothing  in  the  language  of  John,  or  in  the  attendant  circum- 
stances, which  upon  fair  interpretation  requires  or  permits  us  to  believe,  that 
the  beloved  disciple  either  intended  to  correct,  or  has  in  fact  corrected  or  con- 
tradicted, the  explicit  and  unquestionable  testimony  of  Matthew,  Mark  and 
Luke.”  Comp,  also  among  the  more  recent  discussions  Mor.  Kirchner  : Die 


§ 16.  CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  135 


the  Jewish  priests  should  have  matured  their  bloody  counsel  in 
the  solemn  night  of  the  Passover,  and  urged  a crucifixion  on  a 
great  festival,  but  it  agrees  with  the  satanic  wickedness  of  their 
crime.1  Moreover  it  is  on  the  other  hand  equally  difficult  to  ex- 
plain that  they,  together  with  the  people,  should  have  remained 
about  the  cross  till  late  in  the  afternoon  of  the  fourteenth,  when, 
according  to  the  law,  they  were  to  kill  the  paschal  lamb  and  pre- 
pare for  the  feast ; and  that  Nicodemus  and  Joseph  of  Arima- 
thaea,  with  the  pious  women,  should  have  buried  the  body  of 
Jesus  and  so  incurred  defilement  at  that  solemn  hour. 

The  view  here  advocated  is  strengthened  by  astronomical 
calculation,  which  shows  that  in  a.d.  30,  the  probable  year  of  the 
crucifixion,  the  15th  of  Nisan  actually  fell  on  a Friday  (April  7) ; 
and  this  was  the  case  only  once  more  between  the  years  a.d.  28 
and  36,  except  perhaps  also  in  33.  Consequently  Christ  must 
have  been  crucified  a.d.  30.2 

To  sum  up  the  results,  the  following  appear  to  us  the  most 
probable  dates  in  the  earthly  life  of  our  Lord : 

Birth a.  u.  750  (Jan.  ?)  or  749  (Dec.  ?)  b.c.  4 or  5. 

Baptism A.u.  780  (Jan.  ?)  AD.  27. 

Length  of  Public  Ministry 

(three  years  and  three  or 

four  months) A.u.  780-783  a.d.  27-30. 

Crucifixion a.u.  783  (15th  of  Nisan)  a.d.  30  (April  7). 

jiid.  Pa8sahfeier  und  Jesu  letztes  Mahl  (Gotha,  1870) ; McClellan : N.  Test. 
(1875),  I.  473  sqq.,  482 sqq.;  Keil  : Evang.  des  Matt.  (Leipz.  1877),  pp.  513  sqq. 

1 The  answer  to  this  objection  is  well  presented  by  Dr.  Robinson,  Harmony , 
p.  222,  and  Keil,  Evang.  des  Matt.,  pp.  522  sqq.  The  Mishna  prescribes  that 
“ on  Sabbaths  and  festival  days  no  trial  or  judgment  may  be  held  ; ” but  on 
the  other  hand  it  contains  directions  and  regulations  for  the  meetings  and 
actions  of  the  Sanhedrin  on  the  Sabbaths,  and  executions  of  criminals  were 
purposely  reserved  to  great  festivals  for  the  sake  of  stronger  example.  In 
our  case,  the  Sanhedrin  on  the  day  after  the  crucifixion,  which  was  a Sabbath 
and  “a  great  day,”  applied  to  Pilate  for  a watch  and  caused  the  sepulchre 
to  be  sealed,  Matt.  27  : 02  sq. 

a See  Wieseler,  Chronol.  Synopse , p.  446,  and  in  Herzog,  vol.  XXI.  550 ; and 
especially  the  carefully  prepared  astronomical  tables  of  new  and  full  moons 
by  Prof.  Adams,  in  McClellan,  I.  493,  who  devoutly  exults  in  the  result  of  the 
crucial  test  of  astronomical  calculation  which  makes  the  very  heavens,  after 
the  roll  of  centuries,  bear  witness  to  the  harmony  of  the  Gospels. 


136 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


§ 17.  The  Land  and  the  People. 

Literature. 

I.  The  geographical  and  descriptive  works  on  the  Holy  Land  by  Reland 

(1714),  Robinson  (1838  and  1856),  Ritter  (1850-1855),  Raumer  (4th 
ed.  1860),  Tobler  (several  monographs  from  1849  to  1869),  W.  M. 
Thomson  (revised  ed.  1880),  Stanley  (1853,  6th  ed.  1866),  Tristram 
(1864),  Schaff  (1878 ; enlarged  ed.  1889),  Guerin  (1869,  1875,  1880). 

See  Tobler’s  Bibliograpliia  geographica  Palcestince  (Leipz.  1867), 
and  the  supplementary  lists  of  more  recent  works  by  Ph.  Wolff  in 
the  “ Jahrbiiclier  fur  deutsche  Theologie,”  1868  and  1872,  and  by 
Socin  in  the  “Zeitsclirift  des  deutschen  Paliistina-Vereins,”  1878, 
p.  40,  etc. 

II.  The  “ Histories  of  New  Testament  Times  ” ( Neutestamentliche  Zeit- 
geschichte , a special  department  of  historical  theology  recently  intro- 
duced), by  Schneckenburger  (1862),  Hausrath  (1868  sqq.),  and 
Schurer  (1874). 

See  Lit.  in  \ 8,  p.  56. 

There  is  a wonderful  harmony  between  the  life  of  our  Lord 
as  described  by  the  Evangelists,  and  his  geographical  and  his- 
torical environment  as  known  to  us  from  contemporary  writers, 
and  illustrated  and  confirmed  by  modern  discovery  and  research. 
This  harmony  contributes  not  a little  to  the  credibility  of  the 
gospel  history.  The  more  we  come  to  understand  the  age  and 
country  in  which  Jesus  lived,  the  more  we  feel,  in  reading  the 
Gospels,  that  we  are  treading  on  the  solid  ground  of  real  his- 
tory illuminated  by  the  highest  revelation  from  heaven.  The 
poetry  of  the  canonical  Gospels,  if  we  may  so  call  their  prose, 
which  in  spiritual  beauty  excels  all  poetiy,  is  not  (like  that  of 
the  Apocryphal  Gospels)  the  poetry  of  human  fiction — “no 
fable  old,  no  mythic  lore,  nor  dream  of  bards  and  seers ; ” it  is 
the  poetry  of  revealed  truth,  the  poetiy  of  the  sublimest  facts, 
the  poetry  of  the  infinite  wisdom  and  love  of  God  which  never 
before  had  encered  the  imagination  of  man,  but  which  assumed 
human  flesh  and  blood  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth  and  solved  through 
his  life  and  work  the  deepest  problem  of  our  existence. 

The  stationary  character  of  Oriental  countries  and  peoples 
enables  us  to  infer  from  their  present  aspect  and  condition  what 


§ 17.  TIIE  LAND  AND  TIIE  PEOPLE. 


137 


they  were  two  thousand  years  ago.  And  in  this  we  are  aided 
by  the  multiplying  discoveries  which  make  even  stones  and 
mummies  eloquent  witnesses  of  the  past.  Monumental  evidence 
appeals  to  the  senses  and  overrules  the  critical  conjectures  and 
combinations  of  unbelieving  skepticism,  however  ingenious  and 
acute  they  may  be.  Who  will  doubt  the  history  of  the  Phara- 
ohs when  it  can  be  read  in  the  pyramids  and  sphinxes,  in  the 
ruins  of  temples  and  rock-tombs,  in  hieroglyphic  inscriptions 
and  papyrus  rolls  which  antedate  the  founding  of  Home  and  the 
exodus  of  Moses  and  the  Israelites  ? Who  will  deny  the  bibli- 
cal records  of  Babylon  and  Nineveh  after  these  cities  have  risen 
from  the  grave  of  centuries  to  tell  their  own  story  through 
cuneiform  inscriptions,  eagle-winged  lions  and  human-headed 
bulls,  ruins  of  temples  and  palaces  disentombed  from  beneath 
the  earth  ? We  might  as  well  erase  Palestine  from  the  map 
and  remove  it  to  fairy-land,  as  to  blot  out  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  from  history  and  resolve  them  into  airy  myths  and 
legends.1 

The  Land. 

Jesus  spent  his  life  in  Palestine.  It  is  a country  of  about 
the  size  of  Maryland,  smaller  than  Switzerland,  and  not  half  as 
large  as  Scotland,2  but  favored  with  a healthy  climate,  beautiful 
scenery,  and  great  variety  and  fertility  of  soil,  capable  of  pro- 
ducing fruits  of  all  lands  from  the  snowy  north  to  the  tropi- 
cal south  ; isolated  from  other  countries  by  desert,  mountain 

1 Well  says  Hausrath  (Preface  to  2nd  ed.  of  vol.  I.  p.  ix)  against  the  mythi- 

cal  theory  : “ Fur  die  poetische  Welt  der  religiosen  Sage  ist  innerhaV)  einer  vein 
historischen  DarsteUvng  kein  Baum  ; Hire  Gebilde  verbieichen  vor  einem  geschicht- 
lick  heUen  Hintergrund  . . . Wenn  wir  die  lieilige  Geschichte  als  Bruch- 

stuck  einer  aUgemeinen  Geschichte  nachwezsen  und  zeigen  kbnnen , wie  die  Rdnder 
passen , wenn  wir  die  abgerissenen  Fdden , die  sie  mit  der  profanen  Welt  verbanden , 
wieder  aufzufinden  vermogen,  dann  ist  die  Meznung  ausgeschlossen,  diese  Ge- 
schichte sei  der  schbne  Traum  eines  spdteren  Geschlechtes  gewesen.  ” 

2 The  average  length  of  Palestine  is  150  miles,  the  average  breadth  east  and 
west  of  the  Jordan  to  the  Mediterranean,  from  80  to  90  miles,  the  number  of 
square  miles  from  12,000  to  18,000.  The  State  of  Maryland  has  11,124, 
Switzerland  15,992,  Scotland  30,G95  English  square  miles. 


138 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


and  sea,  yet  lying  in  the  centre  of  the  three  continents  of  ths 
eastern  hemisphere  and  bordering  on  the  Mediterranean  high- 
way of  the  historic  nations  of  antiquity,  and  therefore  provi- 
dentially adapted  to  develop  not  only  the  particularism  of  Juda- 
ism, but  also  the  universalism  of  Christianity.  From  little 
Phoenicia  the  world  has  derived  the  alphabet,  from  little  Greece 
philosophy  and  art,  from  little  Palestine  the  best  of  all — the 
true  religion  and  the  cosmopolitan  Bible.  Jesus  could  not  have 
been  born  at  any  other  time  than  in  the  reign  of  Caesar  Augus- 
tus, after  the  Jewish  religion,  the  Greek  civilization,  and  the 
Roman  government  had  reached  their  maturity ; nor  in  any 
other  land  than  Palestine,  the  classical  soil  of  revelation,  nor 
among  any  other  people  than  the  Jews,  who  were  predestinated 
and  educated  for  centuries  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  coming  of 
the  Messiah  and  the  fulfilment  of  the  law  and  the  prophets.  In 
his  infancy,  a fugitive  from  the  wrath  of  Ilerod,  lie  passed 
through  the  Desert  (probably  by  the  short  route  along  the  Med- 
iterranean coast)  to  Egypt  and  back  again ; and  often  may  his 
mother  have  spoken  to  him  of  their  brief  sojourn  in  “ the  land  of 
bondage,”  out  of  which  Jehovah  had  led  his  people,  by  the  mighty 
arm  of  Moses,  across  the  Bed  Sea  and  through  “ the  great  and 
terrible  wilderness  ” into  the  land  of  promise.  During  his  forty 
days  of  fasting  “ in  the  wilderness  ” he  was,  perhaps,  on  Mount 
Sinai  communing  with  the  spirits  of  Moses  and  Elijah,  and  prepar- 
ing himself  in  the  awfully  eloquent  silence  of  that  region  for  the 
personal  conflict  with  the  Tempter  of  the  human  race,  and  for  the 
new  legislation  of  liberty  from  the  Mount  of  Beatitudes.1  Thus 
the  three  lands  of  the  Bible,  Egypt,  the  cradle  of  Israel,  the  Des- 
ert, its  school  and  playground,  and  Canaan,  its  final  home,  were 
touched  and  consecrated  by  “ those  blessed  feet  which,  eighteen 
centuries  ago,  were  nailed  for  our  advantage  on  the  bitter  cross.” 

He  travelled  on  his  mission  of  love  through  Judiea,  Samaria, 

1 The  tradition,  which  locates  the  Temptation  on  the  barren  and  dreary 
mount  Quarantania,  a few  miles  northwest  of  Jericho,  is  of  late  date.  Paul 
also  probably  went,  after  his  conversion,  as  far  as  Mount  Sinai  during  the 
three  years  of  repose  and  preparation  “ in  Arabia,”  Gal.  1:17,  comp.  4 . 24. 


§ 17.  TIIE  LAND  AND  THE  PEOPLE. 


139 


Galilee,  and  Peraea ; lie  came  as  far  north  as  mount  Ilermon, 
and  once  lie  crossed  beyond  the  land  of  Israel  to  the  Phoeni- 
cian border  and  healed  the  demonized  daughter  of  that  heathen 
mother  to  whom  he  said,  “ O woman,  great  is  thy  faith : be  it 
done  unto  thee  even  as  thou  wilt.” 

We  can  easily  follow  him  from  place  to  place,  on  foot  or  oh 
horseback,  twenty  or  thirty  miles  a day,  over  green  fields  and 
barren  rocks,  over  hill  and  dale,  among  flowers  and  thistles,  under 
olive  and  fig-trees,  pitching  our  tent  for  the  night’s  rest,  ignoring 
the  comforts  of  modern  civilization,  but  delighting  in  the  unfad- 
ing beauties  of  God’s  nature,  reminded  at  every  step  of  his  won- 
derful dealings  with  his  people,  and  singing  the  psalms  of  his 
servants  of  old. 

We  may  kneel  at  his  manger  in  Bethlehem,  the  town  of 
Judaea  where  Jacob  buried  his  beloved  Rachel,  and  a pillar, 
now  a white  mosque,  marks  her  grave ; where  Ruth  was  re- 
warded for  her  filial  devotion,  and  children  may  still  be  seen 
gleaning  after  the  reapers  in  the  grainfields,  as  she  did  in  the 
field  of  Boaz ; where  his  ancestor,  the  poet-king,  was  born  and 
called  from  his  father’s  flocks  to  the  throne  of  Israel ; where 
shepherds  are  still  watching  the  sheep  as  in  that  solemn  night 
when  the  angelic  host  thrilled  their  hearts  with  the  heavenly 
anthem  of  glory  to  God,  and  peace  on  earth  to  men  of  his  good 
pleasure  ; where  the  sages  from  the  far  East  offered  their  sacri- 
fices in  the  name  of  future  generations  of  heathen  converts ; 
where  Christian  gratitude  has  erected  the  oldest  church  in  Chris- 
tendom, the  “ Church  of  the  Nativity,”  and  inscribed  on  the 
solid  rock  in  the  “ Holy  Crypt,”  in  letters  of  silver,  the  simple  but 
pregnant  inscription : ullie  de  Yirgine  Maria  Jesus  Cliristus 
natus  estJ  When  all  the  surroundings  correspond  with  the  Scrip- 
ture narrative,  it  is  of  small  account  whether  the  traditional  grotto 
of  the  Nativity  is  the  identical  spot— though  pointed  out  as  such 
it  would  seem  already  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century.1 

1 W.  Hepworth  Dixon  {The  Holy  Land , ch.  14)  ingeniously  pleads  for  the 
traditional  cave,  and  the  identity  of  the  inn  of  the  Nativity  with  the  patri- 
mony of  Boaz  and  the  home  of  David. 


140 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


We  accompany  him  in  a three  days’  journey  from  Bethlehem 
to  Nazareth,  his  proper  home,  where  he  spent  thirty  silent 
years  of  his  life  in  quiet  preparation  for  his  public  work,  un- 
known in  his  divine  character  to  his  neighbors  and  even  the 
members  of  his  own  household  (John  7 : 5),  except  his  saintly 
parents.  Nazareth  is  still  there,  a secluded,  but  charmingly 
located  mountain  village,  with  narrow,  crooked  and  dirty  streets, 
with  primitive  stone  houses  where  men,  donkeys  and  camels  are 
huddled  together,  surrounded  by  cactus  hedges  and  fruitful 
gardens  of  vines,  olive,  fig,  and  pomegranates,  and  favorably 
distinguished  from  the  wretched  villages  of  modern  Palestine 
by  comparative  industry,  thrift,  and  female  beauty ; the  never 
failing  “ Virgin’s  Fountain,”  whither  Jesus  must  often  have 
accompanied  his  mother  for  the  daily  supply  of  water,  is  still 
there  near  the  Greek  Church  of  the  Annunciation,  and  is  the 
evening  rendezvous  of  the  women  and  maidens,  with  their  water- 
jars  gracefully  poised  on  the  head  or  shoulder,  and  a row  of 
silver  coins  adorning  their  forehead  ; and  behind  the  village  still 
rises  the  hill,  fragrant  with  heather  and  thyme,  from  which  he 
may  often  have  cast  his  eye  eastward  to  Gil  boa,  where  Jonathan 
fell,  and  to  the  graceful,  cone-like  Tabor — the  Bighi  of  Pales- 
tine— northward  to  the  lofty  Mount  Hermon — the  Mont  Blanc 
of  Palestine — southward  to  the  fertile  plain  of  Esdraelon — the 
classic  battle-ground  of  Israel — and  westward  to  the  ridge  of 
Carmel,  the  coast  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  and  the  blue  waters  of  the 
Mediterranean  sea — the  future  highway  of  his  gospel  of  peace 
to  mankind.  There  he  could  feast  upon  the  rich  memories  of 
David  and  Jonathan,  Elijah  and  Elisha,  and  gather  images  of 
beauty  for  his  lessons  of  wisdom.  We  can  afford  to  smile  at 
the  silly  superstition  which  points  out  the  kitchen  of  the  Vir- 
gin Mary  beneath  the  Latin  Church  of  the  Annunciation,  the 
suspended  column  where  she  received  the  angel’s  message,  the 
carpenter  shop  of  Joseph  and  Jesus,  the  synagogue  in  which  he 
preached  on  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord,  the  stone  table  at 
which  he  ate  with  his  disciples,  the  Mount  of  Precipitation  two 
miles  off,  and  the  stupendous  monstrosity  of  the  removal  of  the 


141 


§ 17.  THE  LAND  AND  THE  PEOPLE. 

dwelling-house  of  Mary  by  angels  in  the  air  across  the  sea  to 
Loretto  in  Italy ! These  are  childish  fables,  in  striking  con- 
trast with  the  modest  silence  of  the  Gospels,  and  neutralized  by 
the  rival  traditions  of  Greek  and  Latin  monks ; but  nature  in  its 
beauty  is  still  the  same  as  Jesus  saw  and  interpreted  it  in  his 
incomparable  parables,  which  point  from  nature  to  nature’s  God 
and  from  visible  symbols  to  eternal  truths.1 

Jesus  was  inaugurated  into  his  public  ministry  by  his  baptism 
in  the  fast-flowing  river  Jordan,  which  connects  the  Old  and 
New  Covenant.  The  traditional  spot,  a few  miles  from  Jericho, 
is  still  visited  by  thousands  of  Christian  pilgrims  from  all  parts  of 

1 We  add  the  vivid  description  of  Renan  ( Vie  de  Jesus , Ch.  II.  p.  25)  from 
personal  observation  : “ Nazareth  was  a small  town,  situated  in  a fold  of  land 
broadly  open  at  the  summit  of  the  group  of  mountains  which  closes  on  the 
north  the  plain  of  Esdraelon.  The  population  is  now  from  three  to  four 
[probably  five  to  six]  thousand,  and  it  cannot  have  changed  very  much.  It 
is  quite  cold  in  winter  and  the  climate  is  very  healthy.  The  town,  like  all  the 
Jewish  villages  of  the  time,  was  a mass  of  dwellings  built  without  style,  and 
must  have  presented  the  same  poor  and  uninteresting  appearance  as  the  villages 
in  Semitic  countries.  The  houses,  from  all  that  appears,  did  not  differ  much 
from  those  cubes  of  stone,  without  interior  or  exterior  elegance,  which  now 
cover  the  richest  portion  of  the  Lebanon,  and  which,  in  the  midst  of  vines  and 
fig-trees,  are  nevertheless  very  pleasant.  The  environs,  moreover,  are  charm- 
ing, and  no  place  in  the  world  was  so  well  adapted  to  dreams  of  absolute  hap- 
piness Ijiul  endroit  du  monde  ne  fut  si  bien  fait  pour  les  reves  de  Vabsolu  bon- 
heur).  Even  in  our  days,  Nazareth  is  a delightful  sojourn,  the  only  place  per- 
haps in  Palestine  where  the  soul  feels  a little  relieved  of  the  burden  which 
weighs  upon  it  in  the  midst  of  this  unequalled  desolation.  The  people  are 
friendly  and  good-natured  ; the  gardens  are  fresh  and  green.  Antonius  Mar- 
tyr, at  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  draws  an  enchanting  picture  of  the  fer- 
tility of  the  environs,  which  he  compares  to  paradise.  Some  valleys  on  the 
western  side  fully  justify  his  description.  The  fountain  about  which  the  life 
and  gayety  of  the  little  town  formerly  centered,  has  been  destroyed  ; its  broken 
channels  now  give  but  a turbid  water.  But  the  beauty  of  the  women  who 
gathered  there  at  night,  this  beauty  which  was  already  remarked  in  the  sixth 
century,  and  in  which  was  seen  the  gift  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  has  been  surpris- 
ingly well  preserved.  It  is  the  Syrian  type  in  all  its  languishing  grace. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  Mary  was  there  nearly  every  day  and  took  her  place, 
with  her  urn  upon  her  shoulder,  in  the  same  line  with  her  unremembered 
countrywomen.  Antonius  Martyr  remarks  that  the  Jewish  women,  elsewhere 
disdainful  to  Christians,  are  here  full  of  affability.  Even  at  this  day  religious 
animosities  are  less  intense  at  Nazareth  than  elsewhere.”  Comp,  also  the 
more  elaborate  description  in  Keim,  I.  318  sqq.,  and  Tobler’s  monograph  on 
Nazareth,  Berlin,  1868. 


142 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


the  world  at  the  Easter  season,  who  repeat  the  spectacle  of  the 
multitudinous  baptisms  of  John,  when  the  people  came  “ from 
Jerusalem  and  all  Judaea  and  all  the  region  round  about  the 
Jordan  ” to  confess  their  sins  and  to  receive  his  water-baptism 
of  repentance. 

The  ruins  of  Jacob’s  well  still  mark  the  spot  where  Jesus  sat 
down  weary  of  travel,  but  not  of  his  work  of  mercy,  and  opened 
to  the  poor  woman  of  Samaria  the  well  of  the  water  of  life  and 
instructed  her  in  the  true  spiritual  worship  of  God ; and  the 
surrounding  landscape,  Mount  Gerizim,  and  Mount  Ebal,  the 
town  of  Shechem,  the  grain-fields  whitening  to  the  harvest,  all 
illustrate  and  confirm  the  narrative  in  the  fourth  chapter  of 
John while  the  fossil  remnant  of  the  Samaritans  at  Nablous 
(the  modern  Shechem)  still  perpetuates  the  memory  of  the  pas- 
chal sacrifice  according  to  the  Mosaic  prescription,  and  their 
traditional  hatred  of  the  Jews. 

We  proceed  northward  to  Galilee  where  Jesus  spent  the  most 
popular  part  of  his  public  ministry  and  spoke  so  many  of  his 
undying  words  of  wisdom  and  love  to  the  astonished  multitudes. 
That  province  was  once  thickly  covered  with  forests,  cultivated 
fields,  plants  and  trees  of  different  climes,  prosperous  villages 
and  an  industrious  population.1  The  rejection  of  the  Messiah 
and  the  Moslem  invasion  have  long  since  turned  that  paradise  of 
nature  into  a desolate  wilderness,  yet  could  not  efface  the  holy 
memories  and  the  illustrations  of  the  gospel  history.  There  is  the 
lake  with  its  clear  blue  waters,  once  whitened  with  ships  sailing 
from  shore  to  shore,  and  the  scene  of  a naval  battle  between  the 
Homans  and  the  Jews,  now  utterly  forsaken,  but  still  abounding 
in  fish,  and  subject  to  sudden  violent  storms,  such  as  the  one  which 


1 Josephus  no  doubt  greatly  exaggerates  when  he  states  that  there  were  no 
less  than  two  hundred  and  four  towns  and  villages  in  Galilee  ( Vita,  c.  45, 
SiaKoffiai  Ka\  re<raapes  Kara  t)]v  ra\i\alav  cl<r\  tt6\€is  xal  Kwficu),  and  that  the  small- 
est of  those  villages  contained  above  fifteen  thousand  inhabitants  (Bell.  Jud. 
III.  3,  2).  This  would  give  us  a population  of  over  three  millions  for  that 
province  alone,  while  the  present  population  of  all  Palestine  and  Syria 
scarcely  amounts  to  two  millions,  or  forty  persons  to  the  square  mile  (accord- 
ing to  Badeker,  Pal.  and  Syria , 1876,  p.  86). 


§ 17.  TIIE  LAND  AND  TIIE  PEOPLE. 


143 


Jesns  commanded  to  cease ; there  are  the  hills  from  which  he  pro- 
claimed the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  Magna  Charta  of  his  king- 
dom, and  to  which  he  often  retired  for  prayer ; there  on  the 
western  shore  is  the  plain  of  Gennesaret,  which  still  exhibits  its 
natural  fertility  by  the  luxuriant  growth  of  briers  and  thistles  and 
the  bright  red  magnolias  overtopping  them ; there  is  the  dirty 
city  of  Tiberias,  built  by  Ilerod  Antipas,  where  Jewish  rabbis 
still  scrupulously  search  the  letter  of  the  Scriptures  without  lind- 
ing  Christ  in  them ; a few  wretched  Moslem  huts  called  Mejdel 
still  indicate  the  birth-place  of  Mary  Magdalene,  whose  peniten- 
tial tears  and  resurrection  joys  are  a precious  legacy  of  Christen- 
dom. And  although  the  cities  of  Capernaum,  Betlisaida  and 
Chorazim,  “ where  most  of  his  mighty  works  were  done,”  have 
utterly  disappeared  from  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  their  very 
sites  are  disputed  among  scholars,  thus  verifying  to  the  letter 
the  fearful  prophecy  of  the  Son  of  Man,1 2  yet  the  ruins  of  Tell 
Hum  and  Iverazeh  bear  their  eloquent  testimony  to  the  judg- 
ment of  God  for  neglected  privileges,  and  the  broken  columns 
and  friezes  with  a pot  of  manna  at  Tell  Hum  are  probably  the 
remains  of  the  very  synagogue  which  the  good  Boman  centurion 
built  for  the  people  of  Capernaum,  and  in  which  Christ  delivered 
his  wonderful  discourse  on  the  bread  of  life  from  heaven.3 

Caesarea  Philippi,  formerly  and  now  called  Banias  (or  Paneas, 
Paneion,  from  the  heathen  sanctuary  of  Pan),  at  the  foot  of 
Ilermon,  marks  the  northern  termination  of  the  Holy  Land  and 
of  the  travels  of  the  Lord,  and  the  boundary -line  between  the 
Jews  and  the  Gentiles ; and  that  Swiss-like,  picturesque  land- 
scape, the  most  beautiful  in  Palestine,  in  full  view  of  the  fresh, 
gushing  source  of  the  Jordan,  and  at  the  foot  of  the  snow-crowned 

1 Matt.  11  : 20-24  ; Luke  10  : 13-15. 

2 Comp.  Fr.  Delitzscli : Ein  Tag  in  Capernaum , 2d  ed.  1873 ; Furrer : Die 

Ortschaften  am  See  Genezareth , in  the  “Zeitschrift  des  deutschen  Palsestina- 
Vereins,”  1879,  pp.  52  sqq.  ; my  article  on  Capernaum,  ibid.  1878,  pp.  216  sqq. ; 
and  in  the  “ Quarterly  Statement  of  the  Palestine  Exploration  Fund”  for 
July,  1879,  pp.  131  sqq.,  with  the  observations  thereon  by  Lieut.  Kitchener, 
who  agrees  with  Dr.  Robinson  in  locating  Capernaum  at  Khan  Minyeh,  although 
there  are  no  ruins  there  at  all  to  be  compared  with  those  of  Tell  Hum. 


144 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


monarch  of  Syrian  mountains  seated  on  a throne  of  rocks,  seems 
to  give  additional  force  to  Peter’s  fundamental  confession  and 
Christ’s  prophecy  of  his  Church  universal  built  upon  the  im* 
movable  rock  of  his  eternal  divinity. 

The  closing  scenes  of  the  earthly  life  of  our  Lord  and  the  be- 
ginning of  his  heavenly  life  took  place  in  Jerusalem  and  the 
immediate  neighborhood,  where  every  spot  calls  to  mind  the 
most  important  events  that  ever  occurred  or  can  occur  in  this 
world.  Jerusalem,  often  besieged  and  destroyed,  and  as  often 
rebuilt  “ on  her  own  heap,”  is  indeed  no  more  the  Jerusalem  of 
Herod,  which  lies  buried  many  feet  beneath  the  rubbish  and 
filth  of  centuries;  even  the  site  of  Calvary  is  disputed,  and 
superstition  has  sadly  disfigured  and  obscured  the  historic  asso- 
ciations.1 “Christ  is  not  there,  He  is  risen.”2  There  is  no 
more  melancholy  sight  in  the  world  than  the  present  Jerusalem 
as  contrasted  with  its  former  glory,  and  with  the  teeming  life 
of  Western  cities ; and  yet  so  many  are  the  sacred  memories 
clustering  around  it  and  perfuming  the  very  air,  that  even  Home 
must  yield  the  palm  of  interest  to  the  city  which  witnessed  the 
crucifixion  and  the  resurrection.  The  Ilerodian  temple  on 
Mount  Moriah,  once  the  gathering  place  of  pious  Jews  from  all 
the  earth,  and  enriched  with  treasures  of  gold  and  silver  which 
excited  the  avarice  of  the  conquerors,  has  wholly  disappeared, 
and  “ not  one  stone  is  left  upon  another,”  in  literal  fulfilment  of 
Christ’s  prophecy ; 3 but  the  massive  foundations  of  Solomon’s 
structure  around  the  temple  area  still  bear  the  marks  of  the 
Phoenician  workmen ; the  “ wall  of  wailing  ” is  moistened  with 
the  tears  of  the  Jews  who  assemble  there  every  Friday' to  mourn 


1 The  present  mongrel  population  of  Jerusalem — Moslems,  Jews,  and  Chris- 
tians of  all  denominations,  though  mostly  Greek — scarcely  exceeds  30,000, 
while  at  the  time  of  Christ  it  must  have  exceeded  100,000,  even  if  we  make  a 
large  deduction  from  the  figures  of  Josephus,  who  states  that  on  a passover 
under  the  governorship  of  Cestius  Gallus  256,500  paschal  lambs  were  slain,  and 
that  at  the  destruction  of  the  city,  A.D.  70,  1,100,000  Jews  perished  and  97,000 
were  sold  into  slavery  (including  600,000  strangers  who  had  crowded  into  the 
doomed  city).  Bell.  Jud.  vi.  9,  3. 

2 Matt.  28 ; 6.  * Matt.  24 : 2 ; Mark  13:2;  Luke  19  : 44. 


§ 17.  THE  LAND  AND  TIIE  PEOPLE. 


145 


over  the  sins  and  misfortunes  of  their  forefathers ; and  if  we 
look  down  from  Mount  Olivet  upon  Mount  Moriah  and  the 
Moslem  Dome  of  the  Hock,  the  city  even  now  presents  one  of 
the  most  imposing  as  well  as  most  profoundly  affecting  sights  on 
earth.  The  brook  Kedron,  which  Jesus  crossed  in  that  solemn 
night  after  the  last  Passover,  and  Gethsemane  writh  its  venera- 
ble olive-trees  and  reminiscences  of  the  agony,  and  Mount  Olivet 
from  which  he  rose  to  heaven,  are  still  there,  and  behind  it  the 
remnant  of  Bethany,  that  home  of  peace  and  holy  friendship 
which  sheltered  him  the  last  nights  before  the  crucifixion. 
Standing  on  that  mountain  with  its  magnificent  view,  or  at  the 
turning  point  of  the  road  from  Jericho  and  Bethany,  and  look- 
ing over  Mount  Moriah  and  the  holy  city,  we  fully  understand 
why  the  Saviour  wept  and  exclaimed,  “ Jerusalem,  Jerusalem, 
thou  that  killest  the  prophets,  and  stonest  them  that  are  sent 
unto  thee,  how  often  would  I have  gathered  thy  children  to- 
gether even  as  a hen  gathereth  her  chickens  under  her  wings, 
and  ye  would  not ! Behold,  your  house  is  left  unto  you  deso- 
late!” 

Thus  the  Land  and  the  Book  illustrate  and  confirm  each  other. 
The  Book  is  still  full  of  life  and  omnipresent  in  the  civilized 
world ; the  Land  is  groaning  under  the  irreformable  despotism 
of  the  “ unspeakable  ” Turk,  which  acts  like  a blast  of  the  Sirocco 
from  the  desert.  Palestine  lies  under  the  curse  of  God.  It  is 
at  best  a venerable  ruin  “ in  all  the  imploring  beauty  of  decay,” 
yet  not  without  hope  of  some  future  resurrection  in  God’s  own 
good  time.  But  in  its  very  desolation  it  furnishes  evidence  for 
the  truth  of  the  Bible.  It  is  “ a fifth  Gospel,”  engraven  upon  rocks.1 

1 Renan  sums  up  the  results  of  his  personal  observations  as  director  of  the 
scientific  commission  for  the  exploration  of  ancient  Phoenicia  in  1860  and 
1861,  in  the  following  memorable  confession  ( Vie  de  Jesus , Introd.  p.  liii.) . 
“J'ai  traverse  dans  tous  les  sens  la  ‘province  evang  clique  ; fai  visite  Jerusalem , 
Hebron  et  la  Samarie  ; presque  aucune  localite  importante  de  Vliistoire  de  Jesus 
ne  m' a echappe.  Toute  cette  histoire  qui , a distance , semble  flotter  dans  les 
nuages  (Tun  monde  sans  realite,  prit  ainsi  un  corps , une  solidite  qui  m'eton - 
nbrent.  V accord  frappant  des  textes  et  des  lieux , la  merveilleuse  harmonie  de 
Videal  evangelique  avec  le  pay  sage  qui  lui  servit  de  cadre  furent  pour  moi  comme 
une  revelation.  J'eus  devant  les  yeux  un  cinquieme  evangile , lacere , mais  lisible 


146 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


The  People. 

Is  there  a better  argument  for  Christianity  than  the  Jews? 
Is  there  a more  patent  and  a more  stubborn  fact  in  history  than 
that  intense  and  unchangeable  Semitic  nationality  with  its 
equally  intense  religiosity  ? Is  it  not  truly  symbolized  by  the 
bush  in  the  desert  ever  burning  and  never  consumed  ? Nebu- 
chadnezzar, Antioclius  Epiphanes,  Titus,  Hadrian  exerted  their 
despotic  power  for  the  extermination  of  the  Jews ; Hadrian’s 
edict  forbade  circumcision  and  all  the  rites  of  their  religion ; the 
intolerance  of  Christian  rulers  treated  them  for  ages  with  a sort 
of  revengeful  cruelty,  as  if  every  Jew  were  personally  responsible 
for  the  crime  of  the  crucifixion.  And,  behold,  the  race  still  lives 
as  tenaciously  as  ever,  unchanged  and  unchangeable  in  its  na- 
tional traits,  an  omnipresent  power  in  Christendom.  It  still 
produces,  in  its  old  age,  remarkable  men  of  commanding  influ- 
ence for  good  or  evil  in  the  commercial,  political,  and  literary 
world ; we  need  only  recall  such  names  as  Spinoza,  Rothschild, 
Disraeli,  Mendelssohn,  Heine,  Neander.  If  we  read  the  accounts 
of  the  historians  and  satirists  of  imperial  Rome  about  the  Jews 
in  their  filthy  quarter  across  the  Tiber,  we  are  struck  by  the 
identity  of  that  people  with  their  descendants  in  the  ghettos  of 
modern  Rome,  Frankfurt,  and  New  York.  Then  they  excited 
as  much  as  they  do  now  the  mingled  contempt  and  wonder  of 
the  world ; they  were  as  remarkable  then  for  contrasts  of  intel- 
lectual beauty  and  striking  ugliness,  wretched  poverty  and  prince- 
ly wealth  ; they  liked  onions  and  garlic,  and  dealt  in  old  clothes, 
broken  glass,  and  sulphur  matches,  but  knew  how  to  push  them- 
selves from  poverty  and  filth  into  wealth  and  influence  ; they 
were  rigid  monotheists  and  scrupulous  legalists  who  would  strain 
out  a gnat  and  swallow  a camel ; then  as  now  they  were  temper- 

encore , et  desormais,  d tr avers  les  recits  de  Malthieu  et  de  Marc , au  lieu  (Tun 
etre  abstrait , qu'on  dirait  n' avoir  jamais  existe , je  vis  une  admirable  figure 
humaine  vivre , se  mouvoir .”  His  familiarity  with  the  Orient  accounts  for  the 
fact  that  this  brilliant  writer  leaves  much  more  historical  foundation  for  the 
gospel  history  than  his  predecessor  Strauss,  who  never  saw  Palestine. 


§ 17.  THE  LAND  AND  THE  PEOPLE. 


147 


ate,  sober,  industrious,  well  regulated  and  affectionate  in  their 
domestic  relations,  and  careful  for  the  religious  education  of 
their  children.  The  majority  were  then,  as  they  are  now,  car 
nal  descendants  of  Jacob,  the  Supplanter,  a small  minority  spirit- 
ual children  of  Abraham,  the  friend  of  God  and  father  of  the 
faithful.  Out  of  this  gifted  race  have  come,  at  the  time  of 
Jesus  and  often  since,  the  bitterest  foes  and  the  warmest  friends 
of  Christianity. 

Among  that  peculiar  people  Jesus  spent  his  earthly  life,  a Jew 
of  the  Jews,  yet  in  the  highest  sense  the  Son  of  Man,  the  second 
Adam,  the  representative  Head  and  Hegenerator  of  the  whole 
race.  For  thirty  years  of  reserve  and  preparation  he  hid  his 
divine  glory  and  restrained  his  own  desire  to  do  good,  quietly 
waiting  till  the  voice  of  prophecy  after  centuries  of  silence  an- 
nounced, in  the  wilderness  of  Judaea  and  on  the  banks  of  the 
Jordan,  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  startled  the 
conscience  of  the  people  with  the  call  to  repent.  Then  for  three 
years  he  mingled  freely  with  his  countrymen.  Occasionally  he 
met  and  healed  Gentiles  also,  who  were  numerous  in  Galilee ; 
he  praised  their  faith  the  like  of  which  he  had  not  found  in 
Israel,  and  prophesied  that  many  shall  come  from  the  east  and 
the  west  and  shall  sit  down  with  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  in 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  while  the  children  of  the  kingdom  shall 
be  cast  out  into  outer  darkness.1 *  He  conversed  with  a woman 
of  Samaria,  to  the  surprise  of  his  disciples,  on  the  sublimest 
theme,  and  rebuked  the  national  prejudice  of  the  Jews  by  hold- 
ing up  a good  Samaritan  as  a model  for  imitation.3  It  was  on 
the  occasion  of  a visit  from  some  “ Greeks,”  shortly  before  the 
crucifixion,  that  he  uttered  the  remarkable  prophecy  of  the  uni- 
versal attraction  of  his  cross.3  But  these  were  exceptions.  His 
mission,  before  the  resurrection,  was  to  the  lost  sheep  of  Israel.4 

He  associated  with  all  ranks  of  Jewish  society,  attracting  the 

1 Matt.  8 : 5-13 ; 15  : 21-28  ; Luke  7 : 1-9. 

5 John  4 : 5-42 ; Luke  10  : 30-37. 

3 John  12:  20-32. 

4 Matt.  10  ; 5,  6 ; 15  : 14. 


148 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


good  and  repelling  the  bad,  rebuking  vice  and  relieving  misery, 
but  most  of  his  time  he  spent  among  the  middle  classes  who 
constituted  the  bone  and  sinew  of  the  nation,  the  farmers  and 
workingmen  of  Galilee,  who  are  described  to  us  as  an  industri- 
ous, brave  and  courageous  race,  taking  the  lead  in  seditious  poli- 
tical movements,  and  holding  out  to  the  last  moment  in  the 
defence  of  Jerusalem.1  At  the  same  time  they  were  looked  upon 
by  the  stricter  Jews  of  Judaea  as  semi-heathens  and  semi-bar- 
barians ; hence  the  question,  “ Can  any  good  come  out  of  Naza- 
reth,” and  “ Out  of  Galilee  ariseth  no  prophet.” 2 lie  selected 
his  apostles  from  plain,  honest,  unsophisticated  fishermen,  who 
became  fishers  of  men  and  teachers  of  future  ages.  In  Judaea 
he  came  in  contact  with  the  religious  leaders,  and  it  wTas  proper 
that  he  should  close  his  ministry  and  establish  his  church  in  the 
capital  of  the  nation. 

He  moved  among  the  people  as  a Rabbi  (my  Lord)  or  a 
Teacher,  and  under  this  name  he  is  usually  addressed.3  The 

1 Josephus,  Bell.  Jud.  III.  c.  3,  § 2 : “ These  two  Galilees,  of  so  great  large- 
ness, and  encompassed  with  so  many  nations  of  foreigners,  have  been  always 
able  to  make  a strong  resistance  on  all  occasions  of  war  ; for  the  Galileans  are 
inured  to  war  from  their  infancy,  and  have  been  always  very  numerous  ; nor 
hath  the  country  ever  been  destitute  of  men  of  courage,  or  wanted  a numer- 
ous set  of  them  : for  their  soil  is  universally  rich  and  fruitful,  and  full  of  the 
plantations  of  trees  of  all  sorts,  insomuch  that  it  invites  the  most  slothful  to 
take  pains  in  its  cultivation  by  its  fruitfulness  : accordingly  it  is  all  cultivated 
by  its  inhabitants,  and  no  part  of  it  lies  idle.  Moreover,  the  cities  lie  here 
very  thick,  and  the  very  many  villages  there  are  so  full  of  people,  by  the 
richness  of  their  soil,  that  the  very  least  of  them  contained  above  fifteen 
thousand  inhabitants  (?).” 

2 John  1 : 46  ; 7 : 52  ; Matt.  4 : 16.  The  Sanhedrists  forgot  in  their  blind 
passion  that  Jonah  was  from  Galilee.  After  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  Tiberias 
became  the  headquarters  of  Hebrew  learning  and  the  birthplace  of  the 
Talmud. 

3 pa (3 fii  (from  or  with  the  suff.  my  prince,  lord,  wpios)  sixteen 

times  in  the  N.  T.,  pafifiovi  or  j>afif3ovvl  twice;  SitidaitaKos  (variously  rendered 
in  the  E.  V.  teacher , doctor , and  mostly  master)  about  forty  times  ; iiriardr^ 
(rendered  master)  six  times,  Ka^rjyvr'fis  (rendered  master)  once  in  Matt.  23 : 10 
(the  text  rec.  also  in  ver.  8,  where  5 i$a<rKa\os  is  the  correct  reading).  Other 
designations  of  these  teachers  in  the  N.  T.  are  ypannareis.  vo/ukoI , vopoHi- 
ha<TKa\oi.  Josephus  calls  them  <ro(\>iaral , Upoypan/iareTs,  irarpioov  e^yrjTal  v6p.uv% 
the  Mishna  D'-'ESn  and  D'H&iO,  scholars.  See  Schiirer,  p.  441. 


§ 17.  THE  LAND  AND  THE  PEOPLE, 


149 


Rabbis  were  the  intellectual  and  moral  leaders  of  the  nation, 
theologians,  lawyers,  and  preachers,  the  expounders  of  the  law, 
the  keepers  of  the  conscience,  the  regulators  of  the  daily  life 
and  conduct ; they  were  classed  with  Moses  and  the  prophets, 
and  claimed  equal  reverence.  They  stood  higher  than  the 
priests  who  owed  their  position  to  the  accident  of  birth,  and 
not  to  personal  merit.  They  coveted  the  chief  seats  in  the 
synagogues  and  at  feasts;  they  loved  to  be  greeted  in  the 
markets  and  to  be  called  of  men,  “ Rabbi,  Rabbi.”  Hence  our 
Lord’s  warning : “ Be  not  ye  called  6 Rabbi  ’ : for  one  is  your 
Master,  even  Christ ; and  all  ye  are  brethren.”  1 They  taught 
in  the  temple,  in  the  synagogue,  and  in  the  school-house  (Betli- 
hamidrasli),  and  introduced  their  pupils,  sitting  on  the  floor  at 
their  feet,  by  asking  and  answering  questions,  into  the  intricacies 
of  Jewish  casuistry.  They  accumulated  those  oral  traditions 
which  were  afterwards  embodied  in  the  Talmud,  that  huge  re- 
pository of  Jewish  wisdom  and  folly.  They  performed  official 
acts  gratuitously.2  They  derived  their  support  from  an  honor- 
able trade  or  free  gifts  of  their  pupils,  or  they  married  into  rich 
families.  Rabbi  Ilillel  warned  against  making  gain  of  the 
crown  (of  the  law),  but  also  against  excess  of  labor,  saying, 
“ Who  is  too  much  given  to  trade,  will  not  become  wise.”  In 
the  book  of  Jesus  Son  of  Sirach  (which  was  written  about  200 
b.c.)  a trade  is  represented  as  incompatible  with  the  vocation 
of  a student  and  teacher,3  but  the  prevailing  sentiment  at  the 
time  of  Christ  favored  a combination  of  intellectual  and  physi- 
cal labor  as  beneficial  to  health  and  character.  One-third  of 
the  day  should  be  given  to  study,  one-tliird  to  prayer,  one- 
third  to  work.  “ Love  manual  labor,”  was  the  motto  of  Slie- 

1 Matt.  23  : 8 ; comp.  Mark  12:38,  39  ; Luke  11  : 43  ; 20 : 46. 

s The  same,  however,  was  the  case  with  Greek  and  Roman  teachers  before 
Vespasian,  who  was  the  first  to  introduce  a regular  salary.  I was  told  in 
Cairo  that  the  professors  of  the  great  Mohammedan  University  likewise  teach 
gratuitously. 

3 Ecclesiasticus  38  : 24-34  : “ The  wisdom  of  a learned  man  cometh  by  oppor- 
tunity of  leisure  ; and  he  that  hath  little  business  shall  become  wise.  How 
can  he  gee  wisdom  that  holdeth  the  plough,”  etc. 


150 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


maja,  a teacher  of  Hillel.  “He  who  does  not  teach  his  son  a 
trade,”  said  Rabbi  Jehuda,  “ is  much  the  same  as  if  he  taught 
him  to  be  a robber.”  “ There  is  no  trade,”  says  the  Talmud. 
“ which  can  be  dispensed  with ; but  happy  is  he  who  has  in 
his  parents  the  example  of  a trade  of  the  more  excellent  sort.”  1 * 

Jesus  himself  was  not  only  the  son  of  a carpenter,  but  during 
his  youth  he  worked  at  that  trade  himself.3  When  he  entered 
upon  his  public  ministry  the  zeal  for  God’s  house  claimed  all 
his  time  and  strength,  and  his  modest  wants  were  more  than 
supplied  by  a few  grateful  disciples  from  Galilee,  so  that  some- 
thing was  left  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor.3  St.  Paul  learned 
the  trade  of  tentmaking,  which  was  congenial  to  his  native 
Cilicia,  and  derived  from  it  his  support  even  as  an  apostle,  that 
he  might  relieve  his  congregations  and  maintain  a noble  inde- 
pendence.4 

Jesus  availed  himself  of  the  usual  places  of  public  instruction 
in  the  synagogue  and  the  temple,  but  preached  also  out  of 

1 See  Fr.  Delitzsch  : Judisches  Handwerkerleben  zur  Zeit  Jesu.  Erlangen, 
third  ed.  revised,  1879.  He  states  (p.  77)  that  more  than  one  hundred  Rabbis 
who  figure  in  the  Talmud  carried  on  a trade  and  were  known  by  it,  as  R.  Oshaja 
the  shoemaker,  R.  Abba  the  tailor,  R.  Juda  the  baker,  R.  Abba  Josef  the 
architect,  R.  Chana  the  banker,  R.  Abba  Shaul  the  grave-digger,  R.  Abba 
Oshaja  the  fuller,  R.  Abin  the  carpenter,  etc.  He  remarks  (p.  23) : “ The  Jews 
have  always  been  an  industrious  people  and  behind  no  other  in  impulse,  ability 
aud  inventiveness  for  restless  activity  ; agriculture  and  trade  were  their  chief 
occupations  before  the  dissolution  of  their  political  independence;  only  in 
consequence  of  their  dispersion  and  the  contraction  of  their  energies  have 
they  become  a people  of  sharpers  and  peddlers  and  taken  the  place  of  the 
old  Phoenicians.”  But  the  talent  and  disposition  for  sharp  bargains  was  in- 
herited from  their  father  Jacob,  and  turned  the  temple  of  God  into  a house 
of  merchandise.”  Christ  charges  the  Pharisees  with  avarice  which  led  them 
to  ‘‘devour  widows’  houses.”  Comp.  Matt.  23:14;  Mark  12:40;  Luke 
16:  14;  20:47. 

* Mark  6 : 3 Jesus  is  called,  by  his  neighbors,  “the  carpenter”  (6  t€kto>i/), 
Matt.  13  : 55  “the  carpenter’s  son.” 

3 Luke  8:3;  Matt.  27:55;  Mark  15  : 41 ; John  13  : 29.  Among  the  pious 
women  who  ministered  to  Jesus  was  also  Joanna,  the  wife  of  Chuzas,  King 
Herod’s  steward.  To  her  may  be  traced  the  vivid  circumstantial  description 
of  the  dancing  scene  at  Herod’s  feast  and  the  execution  of  John  the  Baptist, 
Mark  6 : 14-29. 

4 Acts  18  : 3 ; 20  : 33-35  ; 1 Thess.  2 : 9 ; 2 Thess.  3 : 8;  2 Cor.  11 : 7-9. 


§ 17.  TIIE  LAND  AND  THE  PEOPLE. 


151 


doors,  on  the  mountain,  at  the  sea-side,  and  wherever  the  peo- 
ple assembled  to  hear  him.  “I  have  spoken  openly  to  the 
world  ; 1 ever  taught  in  synagogues  and  in  the  temple,  where  all 
the  Jews  come  together ; and  in  secret  spake  I nothing.”  1 Paul 
likewise  taught  in  the  synagogue  wherever  he  had  an  opportu- 
nity on  his  missionary  journeys.3  The  familiar  mode  of  teach' 
ing  was  by  disputation,  by  asking  and  answering  questions  on 
knotty  points  of  the  law,  by  parables  and  sententious  sayings, 
which  easily  lodged  in  the  memory ; the  Rabbi  sat  on  a chair, 
the  pupils  stood  or  sat  on  the  floor  at  his  feet.3  Knowledge  of 
the  Law  of  God  was  general  among  the  Jews  and  considered 
the  most  important  possession.  They  remembered  the  com 
mandments  better  than  their  own  name.4  Instruction  began  in 
early  childhood  in  the  family  and  was  carried  on  in  the  school 
and  the  synagogue.  Timothy  learned  the  sacred  Scriptures  on 
the  knees  of  his  mother  and  grandmother.5  Josephus  boasts, 
at  the  expense  of  his  superiors,  that  when  only  fourteen  years 
of  age  he  had  such  an  exact  knowledge  of  the  law  that  he  was 
consulted  by  the  high  priest  and  the  first  men  of  Jerusalem.® 
Schoolmasters  were  appointed  in  every  town,  and  children  were 
taught  to  read  in  their  sixth  or  seventh  year,  but  writing  was 
probably  a rare  accomplishment.7 

The  synagogue  was  the  local,  the  temple  the  national  centre 
of  religious  and  social  life ; the  former  on  the  weekly  Sabbath 
(and  also  on  Monday  and  Thursday),  the  latter  on  the  Passover 

1 John  18  : 20.  Comp.  Matt.  4 : 23  ; 9 : 35  ; 21  : 23  ; 26  : 55  ; Mark  1 : 21, 
39;  14:49;  Luke  2 : 46  ; 4:14-16,  31,44;  13:10;  21:37. 

2 Acts  13:14-16;  16:13;  17:2,  3. 

3 Luke  2 : 46  ; 5 : 17 ; Matt.  5:1;  26  : 55  ; John  8:2;  Acts  22  : 3 (“  at  the 
feet  of  Gamaliel”). 

4 Josephus  often  speaks  of  this.  G.  Ap.  1. 12 : “ More  than  all  we  are  con- 
cerned for  the  education  of  our  youth  (it aiSorpo<f>(a),  and  we  consider  the  keep- 
ing of  the  laws  (t&  <pv\arreiy  rovs  v6fxovs)  and  the  corresponding  piety  (r^y  kcit& 
tovtovs  irapatietionevTjv  evaefieiav)  to  be  the  most  necessary  work  of  life.  ” Comp. 
II.  18  ; Ant.  IY.  8,  12.  To  the  same  effect  is  the  testimony  of  Philo,  Legat . 
ad  Gajum , § 16.  31,  quoted  by  Schiirer,  p.  467. 

5 2 Tim.  1 : 5 ; 3 : 15  ; comp.  Eph.  6:4.  6 Vita , § 2. 

7 Schiirer,  p.  468 ; and  Ginsburg,  art.  Education,  in  Kitto’s  “ Cyc.  of  Bibl. 
Liter.,”  3d  ed. 


152 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


and  the  other  annual  festivals.  Every  town  had  a synagogue* 
large  cities  had  many,  especially  Alexandria  and  Jerusalem.1 
The  worship  was  very  simple : it  consisted  of  prayers,  singing, 
the  reading  of  sections  from  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  in  He- 
brew, followed  by  a commentary  and  homily  in  the  vernacular 
Aramaic.  There  was  a certain  democratic  liberty  of  prophesy- 
ing, especially  outside  of  Jerusalem.  Any  Jew  of  age  could 
read  the  Scripture  lessons  and  make  comments  on  invitation 
of  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue.  This  custom  suggested  to  Jesus 
the  most  natural  way  of  opening  his  public  ministry.  When 
he  returned  from  his  baptism  to  Nazareth,  “ he  entered,  as 
his  custom  was,  into  the  synagogue  on  the  Sabbath  day,  and 
stood  up  to  read.  And  there  was  delivered  unto  him  the  roll 
of  the  prophet  Isaiah.  And  he  opened  the  roll  and  found  the 
place  where  it  was  written  (61  : 1,  2)  ‘ The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is 
upon  me,  because  he  anointed  me  to  preach  good  tidings  to  the 
poor ; he  hath  sent  me  to  proclaim  release  to  the  captives,  and 
recovering  of  sight  to  the  blind,  to  set  at  liberty  them  that  are 
bruised,  to  proclaim  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord.’  And  he 
closed  the  book,  and  gave  it  back  to  the  attendant,  and  sat  down : 
and  the  eyes  of  all  in  the  synagogue  were  fastened  on  him. 
And  he  began  to  say  unto  them,  ‘To-day  hath  this  scripture 
been  fulfilled  in  your  ears.’  And  all  bare  witness  unto  him, 
and  wondered  at  the  words  of  grace  which  proceeded  out  of  his 
mouth  : and  they  said,  Is  not  this  Joseph’s  son  ? ” 2 

On  the  great  festivals  he  visited  from  his  twelfth  year  the 
capital  of  the  nation  where  the  Jewish  religion  unfolded  all  its 
splendor  and  attraction.  Large  caravans  with  trains  of  camels 
and  asses  loaded  with  provisions  and  rich  offerings  to  the  tem- 
ple, were  set  in  motion  from  the  North  and  the  South,  the 
East  and  the  West  for  the  holy  city,  “the  joy  of  the  whole 
earth;”  and  these  yearly  pilgrimages,  singing  the  beautiful  Pil- 

Acts  6 : 9 for  the  freedmen  and  the  Hellenists  and  proselytes  from  different 
countries.  Rabbinical  writers  estimate  the  number  of  synagogues  in  Jerusa- 
lem as  high  as  480  (i.  e.  4 x 10  x 12),  which  seems  incredible. 

2 Luke  4 : 16-22. 


§ 17.  THE  LAND  AND  THE  PEOPLE.  153 

grim  Psalms  (Ps.  120  to  134),  contributed  immensely  to  the 
preservation  and  promotion  of  the  common  faith,  as  the  Moslem 
pilgrimages  to  Mecca  keep  up  the  life  of  Islam.  We  may 
greatly  reduce  the  enormous  figures  of  Josephus,  who  on  one 
single  Passover  reckoned  the  number  of  strangers  and  residents 
in  Jerusalem  at  2,700,000  and  the  number  of  slaughtered  lambs 
at  256,500,  but  there  still  remains  the  fact  of  the  vast  extent  and 
solemnity  of  the  occasion.  Even  now  in  her  decay,  Jerusalem 
(like  other  Oriental  cities)  presents  a striking  picturesque  appear- 
ance at  Easter,  when  Christian  pilgrims  from  the  far  West  min- 
gle with  the  many-colored  Arabs,  Turks,  Greeks,  Latins,  Span- 
ish and  Polish  Jews,  and  crowd  to  suffocation  the  Church  of  the 
Holy  Sepulchre.  How  much  more  grand  and  dazzling  must  this 
cosmopolitan  spectacle  have  been  when  the  priests  (whose  num- 
ber Josephus  estimates  at  20,000)  with  the  broidered  tunic,  the 
fine  linen  girdle,  the  showy  turban,  the  high  priests  with  the 
epliod  of  blue  and  purple  and  scarlet,  the  breastplate  and  the 
mitre,  the  Levites  with  their  pointed  caps,  the  Pharisees  with 
their  broad  phylacteries  and  fringes,  the  Essenes  in  white  dresses 
and  with  prophetic  mien,  Homan  soldiers  with  proud  bearing, 
IJerodian  courtiers  in  oriental  pomposity,  contrasted  with  beggars 
and  cripples  in  rags,  when  pilgrims  innumerable,  Jews  and  pro- 
selytes from  all  parts  of  the  empire,  “ Parthians  and  Medes  and 
Elamites,  and  the  dwellers  in  Mesopotamia,  in  Judaea  and  Cap^ 
padocia,  in  Pontus  and  Asia,  in  Phrygia  and  Pampliylia,  in 
Egypt  and  parts  of  Libya  about  Cyrene,  and  sojourners  from 
Home,  both  Jews  and  proselytes,  Cretans  and  Arabians,”  1 all 
wearing  their  national  costume  and  speaking  a Babel  of  tongues, 
surged  through  the  streets,  and  pressed  up  to  Mount  Moriah, 
where  “the  glorious  temple  rear’d  her  pile,  far  off  appearing 
like  a mount  of  alabaster,  topp’d  with  golden  spires,”  and  where 
on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first  month  columns  of  sacrificial 
smoke  arose  from  tens  of  thousands  of  paschal  lambs,  in  his- 
torical commemoration  of  the  great  deliverance  from  the  land 


1 Acts  2 : 8-12. 


154 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


of  bondage,  and  in  typical  prefiguration  of  the  still  greater  re 
demption  from  the  slavery  of  sin  and  death.1 2 

To  the  outside  observer  the  Jews  at  that  time  were  the  most 
religious  people  on  earth,  and  in  some  sense  this  is  true.  Never 
was  a nation  so  ruled  by  the  written  law  of  God ; never  did  a 
nation  so  carefully  and  scrupulously  study  its  sacred  books,  and 
pay  greater  reverence  to  its  priests  and  teachers.  The  leaders 
of  the  nation  looked  with  horror  and  contempt  upon  the  unclean, 
uncircumcised  Gentiles,  and  confirmed  the  people  in  their  spirit- 
ual pride  and  conceit.  No  wonder  that  the  Homans  charged 
the  Jews  with  the  odium  generis  humani . 

Yet,  after  all,  this  intense  religiosity  was  but  a shadow  of  true 
religion.  It  was  a praying  corpse  rather  than  a living  body. 
Alas ! the  Christian  Church  in  some  ages  and  sections  presents 
a similar  sad  spectacle  of  the  deceptive  form  of  godliness  with- 
out its  power.  The  rabbinical  learning  and  piety  bore  the  same 
relation  to  the  living  oracles  of  God  as  sophistic  scholasticism 
to  Scriptural  theology,  and  Jesuitical  casuistry  to  Christian 
ethics.  The  Rabbis  spent  all  their  energies  in  “ fencing  ” the 
law  so  as  to  make  it  inaccessible.  They  analyzed  it  to  death. 
They  surrounded  it  with  so  many  hair-splitting  distinctions  and 
refinements  that  the  people  could  not  see  the  forest  for  the  trees 
or  the  roof  for  the  tiles,  and  mistook  the  shell  for  the  kernel.3 
Thus  they  made  void  the  Word  of  God  by  the  traditions  of  men.3 
A slavish  formalism  and  mechanical  ritualism  was  substituted 
for  spiritual  piety,  an  ostentatious  sanctimoniousness  for  holiness 

1 Comp,  the  description  of  King  Josiah’s  Passover,  2 Chr.  35  : 1-19. 

2 The  Rabbinical  scholasticism  reminds  one  of  the  admirable  description  of 
logic  in  Goethe’s  Faust : 

“ Wer  will  was  Lebcndig's  erkennen  und  beschreiben, 

Sucht  erst  den  Oeist  hinauszutreiben; 

Dann  hat  er  die  Theile  in  seiner  Hand , 

Fehlt  leider!  nur  das  geistige  Bandy 

3 Matt.  15  : 2,  3,  6 ; Mark  7:3,  5,  8,  9,  13.  It  is  significant  that  Christ 
uses  the  word  ir apaboais  always  in  a bad  sense  of  such  human  doctrines  and 
usages  as  obscure  and  virtually  set  aside  the  sacred  Scriptures.  Precisely  the 
same  charge  was  applied  by  the  Reformers  to  the  doctrines  of  the  monks  and 
schoolmen  of  their  day. 


§ 17.  TIIE  LAND  AND  THE  PEOPLE. 


155 


of  character,  scrupulous  casuistry  for  genuine  morality,  the  kill- 
ing letter  for  the  life-giving  spirit,  and  the  temple  of  God  was 
turned  into  a house  of  merchandise. 

The  profanation  and  perversion  of  the  spiritual  into  the  car- 
nal, and  of  the  inward  into  the  outward,  invaded  even  the  holy 
of  holies  of  the  religion  of  Israel,  the  Messianic  promises  and 
hopes  which  run  like  a golden  thread  from  the  protevangelium 
in  paradise  lost  to  the  voice  of  John  the  Baptist  pointing  to  the 
Lamb  of  God.  The  idea  of  a spiritual  Messiah  who  should 
crush  the  serpent’s  head  and  redeem  Israel  from  the  bondage  of 
sin,  was  changed  into  the  conception  of  a political  deliverer  who 
should  re-establish  the  throne  of  David  in  Jerusalem,  and  from 
that  centre  rule  over  the  Gentiles  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  The 
Jews  of  that  time  could  not  separate  David’s  Son,  as  they  called 
the  Messiah,  from  David’s  sword,  sceptre  and  crown.  Even  the 
apostles  were  affected  by  this  false  notion,  and  hoped  to  secure 
the  chief  places  of  honor  in  that  great  revolution ; hence  they 
could  not  understand  the  Master  when  he  spoke  to  them  of  his 
approaching  passion  and  death.1 

The  state  of  public  opinion  concerning  the  Messianic  expecta* 
tions  as  set  forth  in  the  Gospels  is  fully  confirmed  by  the  pre- 
ceding and  contemporary  Jewish  literature,  as  the  Sibylline 
Books  (about  b.c.  140),  the  remarkable  Book  of  Enoch  (of  uncer- 
tain date,  probably  from  b.c.  130-30),  the  Psalter  of  Solomon 
(b.c.  63-48),  the  Assumption  of  Moses,  Philo  and  Josephus,  the 
Apocalypse  of  Baruch,  and  the  Fourth  Book  of  Esdras.2  In  all 
of  them  the  Messianic  kingdom,  or  the  kingdom  of  God,  is  re- 
presented as  an  earthly  paradise  of  the  Jews,  as  a kingdom  of 
this  world,  with  Jerusalem  for  its  capital.  It  was  this  popular 
idol  of  a pseudo-Messiah  with  which  Satan  tempted  Jesus  in  the 
wilderness,  when  he  showed  him  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world ; 
well  knowing  that  if  he  could  convert  him  to  this  carnal  creed, 

1 Matt.  16  : 21-23 ; Mark  8 : 31-33  ; Luke  9 : 22,  44,  45  ; 18  : 34  ; 24:21; 
John  12  : 34. 

2 See,  of  older  works,  Schottgen,  Horce  Hebraic ce  et  Talmudicce , tom.  II.  (Be 
Messia),  of  modem  works,  Schiirer,  l.  c.  pp.  563-599,  with  the  literature  there 
quoted ; also  James  Drummond,  The  Jewish  Messiah , Lond.  1877. 


156 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


and  induce  him  to  abuse  his  miraculous  power  for  selfish  grati- 
fication, vain  ostentation,  and  secular  ambition,  he  would  most 
effectually  defeat  the  scheme  of  redemption.  The  same  politi- 
cal aspiration  was  a powerful  lever  of  the  rebellion  against  the 
Roman  yoke  which  terminated  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
and  it  revived  again  in  the  rebellion  of  Bar-Cocheba  only  to  end 
in  a similar  disaster. 

Such  was  the  Jewish  religion  at  the  time  of  Christ.  lie  was 
the  only  teacher  in  Israel  who  saw  through  the  hypocritical  mask 
to  the  rotten  heart.  None  of  the  great  Rabbis,  no  Ilillel,  no 
Shammai,  no  Gamaliel  attempted  or  even  conceived  of  a refor- 
mation ; on  the  contrary,  they  heaped  tradition  upon  tradition 
and  accumulated  the  talmudic  rubbish  of  twelve  large  folios  and 
2947  leaves,  which  represents  the  anti-Christian  petrifaction  of 
Judaism ; while  the  four  Gospels  have  regenerated  humanity 
and  are  the  life  and  the  light  of  the  civilized  world  to  this  day. 

Jesus,  while  moving  within  the  outward  forms  of  the  Jewish 
religion  of  his  age,  was  far  above  it  and  revealed  a new  world 
of  ideas.  He,  too,  honored  the  law  of  God,  but  by  unfolding 
its  deepest  spiritual  meaning  and  fulfilling  it  in  precept  and  ex- 
ample. Himself  a Rabbi,  he  taught  as  one  having  direct  author- 
ity from  God,  and  not  as  the  scribes.  How  he  arraigned  those 
hypocrites  seated  on  Moses’  seat,  those  blind  leaders  of  the  blind, 
who  lay  heavy  burdens  on  men’s  shoulders  without  touching 
them  with  their  finger ; who  shut  the  kingdom  of  heaven  against 
men,  and  will  not  enter  themselves ; who  tithe  the  mint  and 
the  anise  and  the  cumin,  and  leave  undone  the  weightier  mat- 
ters of  the  law,  justice  and  mercy  and  faith  ; who  strain  out  the 
gnat  and  swallow  the  camel  ; who  are  like  unto  whited  sepul- 
chres which  outwardly  appear  beautiful  indeed,  but  inwardly 
are  full  of  dead  men’s  bones,  and  of  all  uncleanness.  But 
while  he  thus  stung  the  pride  of  the  leaders,  he  cheered  and 
elevated  the  humble  and  lowly.  He  blessed  little  children,  he 
encouraged  the  poor,  he  invited  the  weary,  he  fed  the  hungry, 
he  healed  the  sick,  he  converted  publicans  and  sinners,  and  laid 
the  foundation  strong  and  deep,  in  God’s  eternal  love,  for  a new 


§ 17.  THE  LAND  AND  THE  PEOPLE. 


157 


society  and  a new  humanity.  It  was  one  of  the  sublimest  as 
well  as  loveliest  moments  in  the  life  of  Jesus  when  the  disciples 
asked  him,  Who  is  the  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ? 
and  when  he  called  a little  child,  set  him  in  the  midst  of  them 
and  said,  “Verily  I say  unto  you,  Except  ye  be  converted  and 
become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  in  no  wise  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  Whosoever  therefore  shall  humble  him- 
self as  this  little  child,  the  same  is  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  And  whoso  shall  receive  one  such  little  child  in  my 
name  receive th  me.”  1 And  that  other  moment  when  he  thanked 
his  heavenly  Father  for  revealing  unto  babes  the  things  of  the 
kingdom  which  were  hid  from  the  wise,  and  invited  all  that 
labor  and  are  heavy  laden  to  come  to  him  for  rest.2 

He  knew  from  the  beginning  that  he  was  the  Messiah  of  God 
and  the  King  of  Israel.  This  consciousness  reached  its  matur- 
ity at  his  baptism  when  he  received  the  Holy  Spirit  without 
measure.3  To  this  conviction  he  clung  unwaveringly,  even  in 
those  dark  hours  of  the  apparent  failure  of  his  cause,  after  Judas 
had  betrayed  him,  after  Peter,  the  confessor  and  rock-apostle, 
had  denied  him,  and  everybody  had  forsaken  him.  He  solemnly 
affirmed  his  Messialiship  before  the  tribunal  of  the  Jewish  liigli- 
priest  ; he  assured  the  heathen  representative  of  the  Roman 
empire  that  he  was  a king,  though  not  of  this  world,  and  when 
hanging  on  the  cross  he  assigned  to  the  dying  robber  a place 
in  his  kingdom.4  But  before  that  time  and  in  the  days  of  his 
greatest  popularity  he  carefully  avoided  every  publication  and 
demonstration  which  might  have  encouraged  the  prevailing  idea 
of  a political  Messiah  and  an  uprising  of  the  people.  He  chose 
for  himself  the  humblest  of  the  Messianic  titles  which  represents 
his  condescension  to  our  common  lot,  while  at  the  same  time  it 

1 Matt.  18  : 1-G  ; comp.  Mark  10  : 13-16  ; Luke  18  : 15-17. 

2 Matt.  11  : 25-30.  This  passage,  which  is  found  only  in  Matthew  and  (in 
part)  in  Luke  10:21,  22,  is  equal  to  any  passage  in  John.  It  is  a genuine 
echo  of  this  word  when  Schiller  sings  : 

‘ ‘ Was  kein  Ver stand  der  Verstdndigen  sieht , 

Das  ubet  in  Einfalt  ein  kindlich  Gemuth .” 

3 John  1 : 32-34 ; comp.  3 : 34.  4 Matt.  26 : 64 ; John  18  : 37  ; Luke  23  : 43. 


158 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


implies  his  unique  position  as  the  representative  head  of  the 
human  family,  as  the  ideal,  the  perfect,  the  universal,  the  arche- 
typal Man.  He  calls  himself  habitually  “ the  Son  of  Man  ” 
who  “ hath  not  where  to  lay  his  head,”  who  “ came  not  to  be 
ministered  unto  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a ransom  for 
many,”  who  “ hath  power  to  forgive  sins,”  who  “ came  to  seek  and 
to  save  that  which  was  lost.” 1 When  Peter  made  the  great  con- 
fession at  Caesarea  Philippi,  Christ  accepted  it,  but  immediately 
warned  him  of  his  approaching  passion  and  death,  from  which 
the  disciple  shrunk  in  dismay.3  And  with  the  certain  expecta- 
tion of  his  crucifixion,  but  also  of  his  triumphant  resurrection  on 
the  third  day,  he  entered  in  calm  and  sublime  fortitude  on  his 
last  journey  to  Jerusalem  which  “killeth  the  prophets,”  and 
nailed  him  to  the  cross  as  a false  Messiah  and  blasphemer. 
But  in  the  infinite  wisdom  and  mercy  of  God  the  greatest 
crime  in  history  was  turned  into  the  greatest  blessing  to  man 
kind. 

We  must  conclude  then  that  the  life  and  work  of  Christ,  while 
admirably  adapted  to  the  condition  and  wants  of  his  age  and 
people,  and  receiving  illustration  and  confirmation  from  his 
environment,  cannot  be  explained  from  any  contemporary  or 
preceding  intellectual  or  moral  resources.  He  learned  nothing 
from  human  teachers.  His  wisdom  was  not  of  this  world.  He 
needed  no  visions  and  revelations  like  the  prophets  and  apostles. 
He  came  directly  from  his  great  Father  in  heaven,  and  when 
he  spoke  of  heaven  he  spoke  of  his  familiar  home.  He  spoke 
from  the  fullness  of  God  dwelling  in  him.  And  his  words  were 
verified  by  deeds.  Example  is  stronger  than  precept.  The  wisest 
sayings  remain  powerless  until  they  are  incarnate  in  a living  per- 
son. It  is  the  life  which  is  the  light  of  men.  In  purity  of  doc- 
trine and  holiness  of  character  combined  in  perfect  harmony, 
Jesus  stands  alone,  unapproached  and  unapproachable.  lie 

1 Luke  9 : 58  ; 19:10;  Matt.  18:11;  20  : 17,  28  ; Mark  2 ; 10,  28  ; John 
1 : 51  ; 6 : 53,  and  many  other  passages.  The  term  6 vlbs  rov  av&p&irov  occurs 
about  80  times  in  the  Gospels.  On  its  meaning  comp,  my  book  on  the  Person 
of  Christ , pp.  83  sqq.  (ed.  of  1880). 

2 Matt  16  : 20-23 ; Mark  8 : 30-33  ; Luke  9 : 21-27. 


§ 17.  THE  LAND  AND  THE  PEOPLE. 


159 


breathed  a fresh  life  from  heaven  into  his  and  all  subsequent 
ages.  He  is  the  author  of  a new  moral  creation. 

Jesus  and  Heulel. — The  infinite  elevation  of  Christ  above  the  men  of 
his  time  and  nation,  and  his  deadly  conflict  with  the  Pharisees  and  scribes 
are  so  evident  that  it  seems  preposterous  and  absurd  to  draw  a parallel 
between  him  and  Hillel  or  any  other  Rabbi.  And  yet  this  has  been  done 
by  some  modern  Jewish  Rabbis,  as  Geiger,  Griitz,  Friedlander,  who  boldly 
affirm,  without  a shadow  of  historical  proof,  that  Jesus  was  a Pharisee,  a 
pupil  of  Hillel,  and  indebted  to  him  for  his  highest  moral  principles.  By 
this  left-handed  compliment  they  mean  to  depreciate  his  originality. 
Abraham  Geiger  (d.  1874)  says,  in  his  Das  Judenthum  und  seine  Geschichte 
(Breslau,  2d  ed.  1865,  vol.  I.  p.  117)  : “ Jesus  war  ein  Jude , ein  pharisd- 
ischer  Jude  mil  galilaischer  Far  bung,  ein  Mann  der  die  Hoffnungen  der  Zeit 
theilte  und  diese  Hoffnungen  in  sich  erfullt  glaubte.  Einen  neuen  Gedanken 
sprach  er  keineswegs  aus  [ ! ],  auch  bracli  er  nicht  etwa  die  Schranken  der 
Nationalist  ....  Er  hob  nicht  im  Entferntesten  etwas  vom  Judenthum 
auf ; er  war  ein  Pharisder , de?'  auch  in  den  Wegen  Hillels  ging ."  This 
view  is  repeated  by  Rabbi  Dr.  M.  H.  Friedlander,  in  his  Geschichtsbilder 
aus  der  Zeit  der  Tanaiten  und  Amoraer.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  Geschichte  des 
Talmuds  (Briinn,  1879,  p.  32) : “ Jesus , oder  Jescliu , war  der  Sohn  eines 
Zimmenneisters,  Namens  Josef,  aus  Nazareth.  Seine  3futtei'  hiess  Mirjam 
ode r Maria.  Selbst  dei ' als  conservative r Katholik  [sic  /]  wie  als  bedeutender 
Gelelirter  bekannte  Ewald  nennt  ihn  ‘ Jesus  den  Sohn  Josefs  ' ...  . Wenn 
auch  Jesus'  Gelehrsamkeit  nicht  riesig  war,  da  die  Galilaer  auf  keiner 
hohen  Stufe  der  Cultur  standen,  so  zeichnete  er  sich  doch  durch  Seelenadel , 
Gemuthlichkeit  und  Herzensgute  vortheilhaft  aus.  Hillel  I.  scheint  sein  Vor- 
bild  und  Musterbild  gewesen  zu  sein ; denn  dei • hillelianische  Grundsatz : 

‘ Was  dir  nicht  reclit  ist,  fiige  deinem  Nebenmenschen  nicht  zu,'  war  das 
Grundprincip  seiner  Lehren."  Renan  makes  a similar  assertion  in  his 
Vie  de  Jesus  (Chap.  III.  p.  35),  but  with  considerable  qualifications: 
“Par  sa  pauvrete  humblement  supportee,  par  la  douceur  de  son  caractere , 
par  V opposition  qu'il  faisait  aux  hypoci'ites  et  aux  pretres,  Hillel  fut  le  vrai 
maitre  de  Jesus,  s'il  est  permis  de  parler  de  maitre,  quoad  il  s'agit  d'une  si 
haute  originalite."  This  comparison  has  been  effectually  disposed  of  by 
such  able  scholars  as  Dr.  Delitzsch,  in  his  valuable  pamphlet  Jesus  und 
Hillel  (Erlangen,  3d  revised  ed.  1879,  40  pp.)  ; Ewald,  V.  12-48  ( Die 
Schule  Hillel' s und  deren  Gegner) ; Keim  I.  268-272  ; Schiirer,  p.  456 ; 
and  Farrar,  Life  of  Christ,  II.  453-460.  All  these  writers  come  to  the 
same  conclusion  of  the  perfect  independence  and  originality  of  Jesus. 
Nevertheless  it  is  interesting  to  examine  the  facts  in  the  case. 

Hillel  and  Shammai  are  the  most  distinguished  among  the  Jewish 
Rabbis.  They  were  contemporary  founders  of  two  rival  schools  of  rab- 
binical theology  (as  Thomas  Aquinas  and  Duns  Scotus  of  two  schools  of 
scholastic  theology).  It  is  strange  that  Josephus  does  not  mention  them, 


160 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


unless  he  refers  to  them  under  the  Hellenized  names  of  Sameas  and  Pol 
lion  ; but  these  names  agree  better  with  Shemaja  and  Abtalion,  two  cele- 
brated Pharisees  and  teachers  of  Hillel  and  Shammai ; moreover  he 
designates  Sameas  as  a disciple  of  Pollion.  (See  Ewald,  v.  22-26; 
Scliiirer,  p.  455).  The  Talmudic  tradition  has  obscured  their  history 
and  embellished  it  with  many  fables. 

Hillel  I.  or  the  Great  was  a descendant  of  the  royal  family  of  David, 
and  born  at  Babylon.  He  removed  to  Jerusalem  in  great  poverty,  and 
died  about  a.d.  10.  He  is  said  to  have  lived  120  years,  like  Moses,  40 
years  without  learning,  40  years  as  a student,  40  years  as  a teacher.  He 
was  the  grandfather  of  the  wise  Gamaliel  in  whose  family  the  presidency 
of  the  Sanhedrin  was  hereditary  for  several  generations.  By  his  burning 
zeal  for  knowledge,  and  his  pure,  gentle  and  amiable  character,  he  at- 
tained the  highest  renown.  He  is  said  to  have  understood  all  languages, 
even  the  unknown  tongues  of  mountains,  hills,  valleys,  trees,  wild  and 
tame  beasts,  and  demons.  He  was  called  “the  gentle,  the  holy,  the 
scholar  of  Ezra.”  There  was  a proverb  : “ Man  should  be  always  as 
meek  as  Hillel,  and  not  quick-tempered  as  Shammai.”  He  differed 
from  Rabbi  Shammai  by  a milder  interpretation  of  the  law,  but  on  some 
points,  as  the  mighty  question  whether  it  was  right  or  wrong  to  eat  an 
egg  laid  on  a Sabbath  day,  he  took  the  more  rigid  view.  A talmudic 
tract  is  called  Beza,  The  Egg , after  this  famous  dispute.  What  a distance 
from  him  who  said : “ The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man  for 
the  Sabbath  : so  then  the  Son  of  Man  is  Lord  even  of  the  Sabbath.” 
Many  wise  sayings,  though  partly  obscure  and  of  doubtful  interpreta- 
tion, are  attributed  to  Hillel  in  the  tract  Pirke  Aboth  (which  is  embodied 
in  the  Mishna  and  enumerates,  in  ch.  1,  the  pillars  of  the  legal  traditions 
from  Moses  down  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem).  The  following  are 
the  best : 

“Be  a disciple  of  Aaron,  peace-loving  and  peace-making ; love  men, 
and  draw  them  to  the  law.” 

“ Whoever  abuses  a good  name  (or,  is  ambitious  of  aggrandizing  his 
name)  destroys  it.” 

“Whoever  does  not  increase  his  knowledge  diminishes  it.” 

“ Separate  not  thyself  from  the  congregation,  and  have  no  confidence 
in  thyself  till  the  day  of  thy  death.” 

“ If  I do  not  care  for  my  soul,  who  will  do  it  for  me  ? If  I care  only 
for  my  own  soul,  what  am  I ? If  not  now,  when  then  ? ” 

“ Judge  not  thy  neighbor  till  thou  art  in  his  situation.” 

“ Say  not,  I will  repent  when  I have  leisure,  lest  that  leisure  should 
never  be  thine.” 

“The  passionate  man  will  never  be  a teacher.” 

“In  the  place  where  there  is  not  a man,  be  thou  a man.” 

Yet  his  haughty  Pharisaism  is  clearly  seen  in  this  utterance : “No 
uneducated  man  easily  avoids  sin ; no  common  person  is  pious.”  The 


§ 17.  TIIE  LAND  AND  THE  PEOPLE.  161 

enemies  of  Christ  in  the  Sanhedrin  said  the  same  (John  7 : 49)  : “This 
multitude  that  knoweth  not  the  law  are  accursed.”  Some  of  his  teach- 
ings are  of  doubtful  morality,  e.  g.  his  decision  that,  in  view  of  a vague 
expression  in  Deut.  24  : 1,  a man  might  put  away  his  wife  “even  if  she 
cooked  his  dinner  badly.”  This  is,  however,  softened  down  by  modern 
Rabbis  so  as  to  mean  : “if  she  brings  discredit  on  his  home.” 

Once  a heathen  came  to  Rabbi  Shammai  and  promised  to  become  a 
proselyte  if  he  could  teach  him  the  whole  law  while  he  stood  on  one  leg. 
Shammai  got  angry  and  drove  him  away  with  a stick.  The  heathen 
went  with  the  same  request  to  Rabbi  Hillel,  who  never  lost  his  temper, 
received  him  courteously  and  gave  him,  while  standing  on  one  leg,  the 
following  effective  answer : 

“Do  not  to  thy  neighbor  what  is  disagreeable  to  thee.  This  is  the 
whole  Law ; all  the  rest  is  commentary  : go  and  do  that.”  (See  Delitzsch, 
p.  17 ; Ewald,  V.  31,  comp.  IV.  270). 

This  is  the  wisest  word  of  Hillel  and  the  chief  ground  of  a comparison 
with  Jesus.  But 

1.  It  is  only  the  negative  expression  of  the  positive  precept  of  the  gospel, 
“ Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,”  and  of  the  golden  rule,  “ All 
things  whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  even  so  do  ye 
also  to  them  ” (Matt.  7 : 12  ; Luke  6 : 31).  There  is  a great  difference 
between  not  doing  any  harm,  and  doing  good.  The  former  is  consistent 
with  selfishness  and  every  sin  which  does  not  injure  our  neighbor.  The 
Saviour,  by  presenting  God’s  benevolence  (Matt.  7 : 11)  as  the  guide  of 
duty,  directs  us  to  do  to  our  neighbor  all  the  good  we  can,  and  he  him- 
self set  the  highest  example  of  self-denying  love  by  sacrificing  his  life 
for  sinners. 

2.  It  is  disconnected  from  the  greater  law  of  supreme  love  to  God, 
without  which  true  love  to  our  neighbor  is  impossible.  “ On  these  two 
commandments,”  combined  and  inseparable,  “ hang  all  the  law  and  the 
prophets”  (Matt.  22  : 37-40). 

3.  Similar  sayings  are  found  long  before  Hillel,  not  only  in  the  Penta- 
teuch and  the  Book  of  Tobith  (4  : 15  : o niaels  /u» jdev'i  noiqays,  “Do  that 
to  no  man  which  thou  hatest  but  substantially  even  among  the  heathen 
(Confucius,  Buddha,  Herodotus,  Isocrates,  Seneca,  Quintilian),  but  always 
either  in  the  negative  form,  or  with  reference  to  a particular  case  or 
class;  e.  g.  Isocrates,  Ad  Demonic,  c.  4 : “Be  such  towards  your  parents 
as  thou  shalt  pray  thy  children  shall  be  towards  thyself ; ” and  the  same 
In  JEginet.  c.  23  : “ That  you  would  be  such  judges  to  me  as  you  would 
desire  to  obtain  for  yourselves.”  See  Wetstein  on  Matt.  7 : 12  [Nov.  Test. 
I.  341  sq.).  Parallels  to  this  and  other  biblical  maxims  have  been  gath- 
ered in  considerable  number  from  the  Talmud  and  the  classics  by  Light- 
foot,  Grotius,  Wetstein,  Deutsch,  Spiess,  Ramage ; but  what  are  they  all 
compared  with  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  ? Moreover,  si  duo  idem  dicuntf 
non  est  idem.  As  to  the  rabbinical  parallels,  we  must  remember  that  they 


162 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


were  not  committed  to  writing  before  the  second  century,  and  that,  as 
Delitzsch  says  (Ein  Tag  in  Capernaum , p.  137),  “not  a few  sayings  oi 
Christ,  circulated  by  Jewish  Christians,  reappeared  anonymously  or  under 
false  names  in  the  Talmuds  and  Midrashim.” 

4.  No  amount  of  detached  words  of  wisdom  constitute  an  organic  sys- 
tem of  ethics  any  more  than  a heap  of  marble  blocks  constitute  a palace 
or  temple ; and  the  best  system  of  ethics  is  unable  to  produce  a holy 
life,  and  is  worthless  without  it. 

We  may  admit  without  hesitation  that  Hillel  was  “ the  greatest  and  best 
of  all  Pharisees  ” (Ewald),  but  he  was  far  inferior  to  John  the  Baptist ; and 
to  compare  him  with  Christ  is  sheer  blindness  or  folly.  Ewald  calls  such 
comparison  “utterly  perverse”  (grundverkehrt,  v.  48).  Farrar  remarks 
that  the  distance  between  Hillel  and  Jesus  is  “a  distance  absolutely  im- 
measurable, and  the  resemblance  of  his  teaching  to  that  of  Jesus  is  the 
resemblance  of  a glow-worm  to  the  sun  ” (II.  455).  “ The  fundamental 

tendencies  of  both,”  says  Delitzsch  (p.  23),  “ are  as  widely  apart  as  heaven 
and  earth.  That  of  Hillel  is  legalistic,  casuistic,  and  nationally  con- 
tracted ; that  of  Jesus  is  universally  religious,  moral  and  human.  Hillel 
lives  and  moves  in  the  externals,  Jesus  in  the  spirit  of  the  law.”  He  was 
not  even  a reformer,  as  Geiger  and  Friedlander  would  make  him,  for 
what  they' adduce  as  proofs  are  mere  trifles  of  interpretation,  and  involve 
no  new  principle  or  idea. 

Viewed  as  a mere  human  teacher,  the  absolute  originality  of  Jesus 
consists  in  this,  “ that  his  words  have  touched  the  hearts  of  all  men  in 
all  ages,  and  have  regenerated  the  moral  life  of  the  world  ” (Farrar,  II. 
454).  But  Jesus  is  far  more  than  a Kabbi,  more  than  a sage  and  saint, 
more  than  a reformer,  more  than  a benefactor ; he  is  the  author  of  the 
true  religion,  the  prophet,  priest  and  king,  the  renovator,  the  Saviour  of 
men,  the  founder  of  a spiritual  kingdom  as  vast  as  the  race  and  as  long 
as  eternity. 

§ 18.  Apocryphal  Traditions. 

We  add  some  notes  of  minor  interest  connected  with  the 
history  of  Christ  ontside  of  the  only  authentic  record  in  the 
Gospels. 

I.  The  Apocryphal  Sayings  of  our  Lord. — The  canonical  Gospels 
contain  all  that  is  necessary  for  us  to  know  about  the  words  and  deeds 
of  our  Lord,  although  many  more  might  have  been  recorded  (John  20  : 
30  ; 21 : 25).  Their  early  composition  and  reception  in  the  church  pre- 
cluded the  possibility  of  a successful  rivalry  of  oral  tradition.  The  extra- 
biblical  sayings  of  our  Lord  are  mere  fragments,  few  in  number,  and  with 
one  exception  rather  unimportant,  or  simply  variations  of  genuine  words. 


18.  APOCRYPHAL  TRADITIONS. 


103 


They  iiave  been  collected  by  Fabricius,  in  Codex  Apocr.  N.  T.%  L 
pp.  32i-335  ; Grabe  : Spicilegium  SS.  Patrum , ed.  alt.  I.  12  sqq.,  326 
sq. ; Koerner  : De  semnonibus  Ckristi  dypdfyois  (Lips.  1776)  ; Routh, 
in  Reliq.  Sacra?,  vol.  I.  9-12,  etc. ; Hud.  Hofmann,  in  Das  Leben  Jesu 
nacli  den  Apokryphen  (Leipz.  1851,  $ 75,  pp.  317-334)  ; Bunsen,  in  Anal. 
ante-Nic.  I.  29  sqq.  ; Anger,  in  Synops.  Evang.  (1852)  ; Westcott  : Introd. 
to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels,  Append.  C.  (pp.  446  sqq.  of  the  Boston  ed.  by 
Hackett) ; Plumptre,  in  Ellicott’s  Com.  for  English  Readers,  I.  p.  xxxiii. ; 
J.  T.  Dodd  : Sayings  ascribed  to  our  Lord  by  the  Fathers  (1874) ; E.  B. 
Nicholson  : The  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  (Lond.  1879,  pp.  143-162). 
Comp,  an  essay  of  Ewald  in  his  “ Jalirbiicher  der  Bibl.  Wissenschaft,”  VI. 
40  and  54  sqq.,  and  Geschichte  Christus',  p.  288.  We  avail  ourselves  chiefly 
of  the  collections  of  Hofmann,  Westcott,  Plumptre,  and  Nicholson. 

(1)  “ It  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive.”  Quoted  by  Paul,  Acts 
20  : 35.  Comp.  Luke  6 : 30,  31 ; also  Clement  of  Rome,  Ad  Cv)\  c.  2,  rjdiov 
dibovTfs  fj  XanfidvovTcs,  “more  gladly  giving  than  receiving.”  This  is 
unquestionably  authentic,  pregnant  with  rich  meaning,  and  shining  out 
like  a lone  star  all  the  more  brilliantly.  It  is  true  in  the  highest  sense  of 
the  love  of  God  and  Christ.  The  somewhat  similar  sentences  of  Aristotle, 
Seneca,  and  Epicurus,  as  quoted  by  Plutarch  (see  the  passages  in  Wet- 
stein  on  Acts  20  : 35),  savor  of  aristocratic  pride,  and  are  neutralized  by 
the  opposite  heathen  maxim  of  mean  selfishness  : “ Foolish  is  the  giver, 
happy  the  receiver.”  Shakespeare  may  have  had  the  sentence  in  his 
mind  when  he  put  into  the  mouth  of  Portia  the  golden  words  : 

44  The  quality  of  mercy  is  not  strained, 

It  droppeth  as  the  gentle  rain  from  heaven 
Upon  the  place  beneath  : it  is  twice  blessed ; 

It  blesseth  him  that  gives  and  him  that  takes ; 

’Tis  mightiest  in  the  mightiest;  it  becomes 
The  throned  monarch  better  than  his  crown.” 


(2)  “ And  on  the  same  day  Jesus  saw  a man  working  at  his  craft  on 
the  Sabbath-day,  and  He  said  unto  him,  ‘ 0 man,  if  thou  knowest  what  thou 
doest,  then  art  thou  blessed;  but  if  tliou  knowest  not,  then  art  thou  accursed, 
and  art  a transgressor  of  the  Law ” An  addition  to  Luke  6 : 4,  in  Codex 
D.  or  Bezse  (in  the  University  library  at  Cambridge),  which  contains  several 
remarkable  additions.  See  Tischendorf’s  apparatus  in  ed.  VIII.  Luc.  6 : 4, 
and  Scrivener,  Introd.  to  CHticism  of  the  N.  T.  p.  8.  em  Kurd  paros  is  used 
John  7 : 49  (text,  rec.)  by  the  Pharisees  of  the  people  who  know  not  the  law 
(also  Gal.  3 : 10,  13  in  quotations  from  the  O.  T.) ; napaPdrijs  rou  vdpov  by 
Paul  (Rom.  2 : 25,  27 ; Gal.  2 : 18)  and  James  (2  : 9, 11).  Plumptre  regards 
the  narrative  as  authentic,  and  remarks  that  “ it  brings  out  with  a marvel 
lous  force  the  distinction  between  the  conscious  transgression  of  a law 
recognized  as  still  binding,  and  the  assertion  of  a higher  law  as  super* 
seding  the  lower.'  * Comp,  also  the  remarks  of  Hofmann,  l.  c.  p.  318. 


164 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


(3)  “But  ye  seek  (or,  in  the  imperative,  seek  ye , {lyrel-rc)  to  increase  from 
little , and  {not)  from  greater  to  be  less.”  An  addition  in  Codex  D.  to  Matt 
20  : 28.  See  Tischendorf.  Comp.  Luke  14:11;  John  5 : 44.  Westcott 
regards  this  as  a genuine  fragment.  Nicholson  inserts  “ not,”  with  the 
Curetonian  Syriac,  D ; all  other  authorities  omit  it.  Juvencus  has  in* 
corporated  the  passage  in  his  poetic  Hist.  Evang.  III.  613  sqq.,  quoted  by 
Hofmann,  p.  319. 

(4)  “Be  ye  trustworthy  money-changers , or,  proved  bankers  (t pane  (fir at 
Sii/ci/ioi) ; i.  e.  expert  in  distinguishing  the  genuine  coin  from  the  counter- 
feit. Quoted  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  (several  times),  Origen  {in  Joann. 
xix.),  Eusebius,  Epiphanius,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  many  others.  Comp. 
1 Thess.  5 : 21 : “Prove  all  things,  hold  fast  the  good,”  and  the  parable 
of  the  talents,  Matt.  25 : 27.  Delitzsch,  who  with  many  others  regards 
this  maxim  as  genuine,  gives  it  the  meaning : Exchange  the  less  valuable 
for  the  more  valuable,  esteem  sacred  coin  higher  than  common  coin,  and 
highest  of  all  the  one  precious  pearl  of  the  gospel.  [Ein  Tag  in  Caper- 
naum,, p.  136.)  Renan  likewise  adopts  it  as  historical,  but  explains  it  in 
an  Ebionite  and  monastic  sense  as  an  advice  of  voluntary  poverty.  “Be 
ye  good  bankers  [soyez  de  bons  banquiers),  that  is  to  say : Make  good  in- 
vestments for  the  kingdom  of  God,  by  giving  your  goods  to  the  poor, 
according  to  the  ancient  proverb  (Prov.  19  : 17) : ‘ He  that  hath  pity 
upon  the  poor,  lendeth  to  the  Lord  ’ ” ( Vie  de  Jesus,  ch.  XI.  p.  180,  5th 
Par.  ed.). 

[ (5)  “ The  Son  of  God  says,  (?)  ‘ Let  us  resist  all  iniquity,  and  hold  it  in 
abhorrence.  ’ ” From  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  c.  4.  This  Epistle,  though 
incorporated  in  the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  is  probably  not  a work  of  the  apos- 
tolic Barnabas.  Westcott  and  Plumptre  quote  the  passage  from  the 
Latin  version,  which  introduces  the  sentence  with  the  words : sicut  dicit 
Filius  Dei.  But  this  seems  to  be  a mistake  for  sicut  decet  filios  Dei , “as 
becometh  the  sons  of  God.”  This  is  evident  from  the  Greek  original 
(brought  to  light  by  the  discovery  of  the  Codex  Sinaiticus),  which  reads, 
cos  t rpe'nfi  viols  3fof>,  and  connects  the  words  with  the  preceding  sentence. 
See  the  edition  of  Barnabce  Epistula  by  Gebhardt  and  Harnack  in  Patr. 
Apost.  Op.  1. 14.  For  the  sense  comp.  2 Tim.  2:19:  dnocrTrjTco  dm)  ddudas, 
James  4:7:  dvrlo-TrjTf  TW  8ia/3oXa>,  Ps.  119  : 163  : dfiiKiav  fpiarjcrn.] 

(6)  “ They  who  wish  to  see  me,  and  to  lay  hold  on  my  kingdom,  must 
receive  me  with  affliction  and  suffering.”  From  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas, 
c.  7,  where  the  words  are  introduced  by  “Thus  he  [Jesus]  saitli,” 
(frrjo-iv.  But  it  is  doubtful  whether  they  are  meant  as  a quotation  or 
rather  as  a conclusion  of  the  former  remarks  and  a general  reminiscence 
of  several  passages.  Comp.  Matt.  16  : 24 ; 20  : 23 ; Acts  14  : 22 : “ We 
must  through  much  tribulation  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.” 

(7)  “ He  that  wonders  [o  Snvpntrus,  with  the  wonder  of  reverential  faith] 
shall  reign,  and  he  that  reigns  shall  be  made  to  rest.”  From  the  “Gospel 
of  the  Hebrews,”  quoted  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Strom.  II.  9,  \ 45). 


§ 18.  APOCRYPHAL  TRADITIONS. 


16.1 


The  Alexandrian  divine  quotes  this  and  the  following  sentence  to  show, 
as  Plumptre  finely  says,  “ that  in  the  teaching  of  Christ,  as  in  that  of 
Plato,  wonder  is  at  once  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  knowledge.” 

(8)  “ Look  with  wonder  at  the  things  that  are  before  thee  (jiavpaaov  rh 
nafjovTa).”  From  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Strom.  II.  9,  \ 45.). 

(9)  “ I came  to  abolish  sacrifices,  and  unless  ye  cease  from  sacrificing , the 
wrath  [of  God]  will  not  cease  from  you.”  From  the  Gospel  of  the  Ebionites 
(or  rather  Esssean  Judaizers),  quoted  by  Epiplianius  (Hcer.  xxx.  16). 
Comp.  Matt.  9 : 13,  “I  will  have  mercy  and  not  sacrifice.” 

(10)  “Ask  great  things , and  the  small  shall  be  added  to  you : ask  heavenly 
things , and  there  shall  be  added  unto  you  earthly  things.”  Quoted  by 
Clement  of  Alexandria  (Strom.  I.  24,  g 154 ; comp.  IV.  6,  g 34)  and  Origen 
(de  Oratione , c.  2),  with  slight  differences.  Comp.  Matt.  6 : 33,  of  which 
it  is  probably  a free  quotation  from  memory.  Ambrose  also  quotes  the 
sentence  ( Ep . xxxvi.  3) : “Denique  scriptum  est : * Petite  magna , etparva 
adjicientur  vobis.  Petite  ccelestia,  et  terrena  adjicientur .’  ” 

(11)  “In  the  things  wherein  I find  you,  in  them  will  I judge  you.”  Quoted 
by  Justin  Martyr  (Dial.  c.  Tryph.  c.  47),  and  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Quit 
dives,  § 40).  Somewhat  different  Nilus : “Such  as  I find  thee,  I will 
judge  thee,  saith  the  Lord.”  The  parallel  passages  in  Ezekiel  7 : 3,  8 ; 
18:30;  24:14;  33:20  are  not  sufficient  to  account  for  this  sentence. 
It  is  probably  taken  from  an  apocryphal  Gospel.  See  Hofmann,  p.  323. 

(12)  “ He  who  is  nigh  unto  me  is  nigh  unto  the  fire : he  who  is  far  from 
me  is  far  from  the  kingdom”  From  Origen  (Comm,  in  Jer.  III.  p.  778), 
and  Didymus  of  Alexandria  (in  Ps.  88  : 8).  Comp.  Luke  12  : 49.  Igna- 
tius (Ad  Smyrn.  c.  4)  has  a similar  saying,  but  not  as  a quotation,  “ To 
be  near  the  sword  is  to  be  near  God”  (c’yyi;?  pn^aipas  eyyvs  3fo0). 

(13)  “ If  ye  kept  not  that  which  is  little,  who  will  give  you  that  which  is 
great?  For  I say  unto  you , he  that  is  faithful  in  the  least  is  faithful  also 
in  much.”  From  the  homily  of  Pseudo-Clement  of  Rome  (ch.  8).  Comp. 
Luke  16  : 10-12  and  Matt.  25  : 21,  23.  Irenteus  (II.  34,  3)  quotes  simi- 
larly, probably  from  memory  : “Si  in  modico  fideles  non  fuistis,  quod 
magnum  est  quis  dabit  nobis  ? ” 

(14)  “Keep  the  flesh  pure,  and  the  seal  [probably  baptism]  without  stain 
that  we  (ye)  may  receive  eternal  life.”  From  Pseudo-Clement,  ch.  8.  But  as 
this  is  connected  with  the  former  sentence  by  apa  ovv  tovto  Xeyet,  it  seems 
to  be  only  an  explanation  (“he  means  this”)  not  a separate  quotation. 
See  Lightfoot,  St.  Clement  of  Rome,  pp.  200  and  201,  and  his  Appendix 
containing  the  newly  recovered  Portions,  p.  384.  On  the  sense  comp. 
2 Tim.  2:19;  Rom.  4 : 11 ; Eph.  1 : 13;  4 : 30. 

(15)  Our  Lord,  being  asked  by  Salome  when  His  kingdom  should 
come,  and  the  things  which  he  had  spoken  be  accomplished,  answered, 
“When  the  two  shall  be  one,  and  the  outward  as  the  inward,  and  the  male 
irith  the  female,  neither  male  nor  female.”  From  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
as  a quotation  from  “the  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians ” (Str 'om. 


166 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


III.  13,  l 92),  and  the  homily  of  Pseudo-Clement  of  Rome  (ch.  12).  Comp. 
Matt.  22:30;  Gal.  3:28;  1 Cor.  7 : 29.  The  sentence  has  a mystical  color* 
ing  which  is  alien  to  the  genuine  Gospels,  but  suited  the  Gnostic  taste. 

(16)  “ For  those  that  are  infirm  was  I infirm , and  for  those  that  hunger 
did  I hunger , and for  those  that  thirst  did  I thirst .”  From  Origen  (in  Matt. 
xiii.  2).  Comp.  Matt.  25  : 35,  36 ; 1 Cor.  9 : 20-22. 

■ (17)  “ Never  be  ye  joyful,  except  when  ye  have  seen  your  brother  \ dwelling ] 
in  love”  Quoted  from  the  Hebrew  Gospel  by  Jerome  (in  Eph.  v.  3). 

(18)  “ Take  hold , handle  me,  and  see  that  lam  not  a bodiless  demon  \i.  e. 
spirit].”  From  Ignatius  (Ad  Smyrn.  c.  3),  and  Jerome,  who  quotes  it 
from  the  Nazarene  Gospel  (De  Viris  illustr.  16).  Words  said  to  have 
been  spoken  to  Peter  and  the  apostles  after  the  resurrection.  Comp. 
Luke  24  : 39  ; John  20  : 27. 

(19)  “ Good  must  needs  come,  but  blessed  is  he  through  whom  it  cometh; 
in  like  manner  evil  must  needs  come,  but  woe  to  him  through  whom  it  cometh.” 
From  the  “Clementine  Homilies,”  xii.  29.  For  the  second  clause  comp. 
Matt.  18  : 7 ; Luke  17  : 1. 

(20)  “ My  mystery  is  for  me,  and  for  the  sons  of  my  house.”  From  Clement 
of  Alexandria  (Strom.  V.  10,  \ 64),  the  Clementine  Homilies  (xix.  20),  and 
Alexander  of  Alexandria  (Ep.  ad  Alex.  c.  5,  where  the  words  are  ascribed 
to  the  Father).  Comp.  Isa.  24  : 16  (Sept.)  ; Matt.  13  : 11 ; Mark  4 : 11. 

(21)  “ If  you  do  not  make  your  low  things  high  and  your  crooked  things 
straight,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  my  kingdom.”  From  the  Acta  Philippi  in 
Tiscliendorf’s  Acta  Apost.  Apocr.  p.  90,  quoted  by  Ewald,  Gesch.  Christus ,’ 
p.  288,  who  calls  these  words  a weak  echo  of  more  excellent  sayings. 

(22)  “ I will  choose  these  things  to  myself.  Very  excellent  are  those  whom 
my  Father  that  is  in  heaven  hath  given  to  me.”  From  the  Hebrew  Gospel, 
quoted  by  Eusebius  (Theophan.  iv.  13). 

(23)  “The  Lord  said,  speaking  of  His  kingdom,  * The  days  will  come 
in  which  vines  will  spring  up,  each  having  ten  thousand  stocks,  and  on  each 
stock  ten  thousand  branches,  and  on  each  branch  ten  thousand  shoots,  and  on 
each  shoot  ten  thousand  bunches,  and  on  each  bunch  ten  thousand  grapes,  and 
each  grape  when  pressed  shall  give  five-and-twenty  measures  of  wine.  And 
when  any  saint  shall  have  laid  hold  on  one  bunch,  another  shall  cry,  I am  a 
better  bunch,  take  me ; through  me  bless  the  Lord'  Likewise  also  [he  said], 

‘ that  a grain  of  wheat  shall  produce  ten  thousand  ears  of  corn,  and  each 
grain  ten  pounds  of  fine  pure  flour  ; and  so  all  other  fruits  and  seeds  and 
each  herb  according  to  its  proper' nature.  And  that  all  animals,  using  for 
food  what  is  received  from  the  earth,  shall  live  in  peace  and  concord  with  one 
another,  subject  to  men  with  all  subjection .'  ” To  this  description  Papias 
adds  : “ These  things  are  credible  to  those  who  believe.  And  when  Judas 
the  traitor  believed  not  and  asked,  ‘ How  shall  such  products  come  from 
the  Lord?  ’ the  Lord  said,  ‘ They  shall  see  who  come  to  me  in  these  times'  ” 
From  the  “ weak-minded  ” Papias  (quoted  by  Irenseus,  Adv.  Hcer.  V.  33, 
3).  Comp.  Isa.  11  : 6-9. 


§ 18.  APOCRYPHAL  TRADITIONS. 


167 


This  is  a strongly  figurative  description  of  the  millennium.  Westcott 
thinks  it  is  based  on  a real  discourse,  but  to  me  it  sounds  fabulous,  and 
borrowed  from  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch  which  has  a similar  passage 
(cap.  20,  first  published  in  Monumenta  Sacra  et  Prof  ana  opera  Collegii  I)oc- 
torum  Bibliothecae,  Ambrosianoe , Tom.  I.  Fasc.  II.  Mediol.  1866,  p.  80,  and 
then  in  Fritzsclie’s  ed.  of  Libri  Apocryphi  Veteris  Test.  Lips.  1871,  p.  666): 
“Etiam  teira  dabit  fructus  suos  unum  in  decern  millia , et  in  vite  una  erunt  mille 
palmites , et  unus  palmes  fadet  mille  botros , et  botrus  unus  faciet  mille  acinos, 
et  unus  acitius  faciet  corum  vini.  Et  qui  esurierunt  jucundabuntur,  iterum 
autem  videbunt  prodigia  quotidie  . ...  Et  erit  in  illo  tempore , descendet 
iterum  desuper  thesaurus  manna,  et  comedent  ex  eo  in  istis  annis.” 

Westcott  quotes  eleven  other  apocryphal  sayings  which  are  only  loose 
quotations  or  perversions  of  genuine  words  of  Christ,  and  may  therefore 
be  omitted.  Nicholson  has  gathered  the  probable  or  possible  fragments 
of  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  which  correspond  more  or  less 
to  passages  in  the  canonical  Gospels. 

Mohammedan  tradition  has  preserved  in  the  Koran  and  in  other  writings 
several  striking  words  of  Christ,  which  Hofmann,  l.  c.  pp.  327-329,  lias 
collected.  The  following  is  the  best : 

“Jesus,  the  Son  of  Mary,  said,  ‘He  who  longs  to  be  rich  is  like  a man 
who  dHnks  sea-watei * ; the  moi'e  he  drinks  the  more  thirsty  he  becomes,  and 
never  leaves  off  dHnking  till  he  perishes'  ” 

H.  Personal  Appearance  of  Jesus. — None  of  the  Evangelists,  not  even 
the  beloved  disc^le  and  bosom-friend  of  Jesus,  gives  us  the  least  hint  of 
his  countenance  and  stature,  or  of  his  voice,  his  manner,  his  food,  his 
dress,  his  mode  of  daily  life.  In  this  respect  our  instincts  of  natural 
affection  have  been  wisely  overruled.  He  wlio  is  the  Saviour  of  all  and 
the  perfect  exemplar  for  all  should  not  be  identified  with  the  particular 
lineaments  of  one  race  or  nationality  or  type  of  beauty.  We  should  cling 
to  the  Christ  in  spirit  and  in  glory  rather  than  to  the  Christ  in  the  flesh 
So  St.  Paul  thought  (2  Cor.  5 : 16 ; comp.  1 Pet.  1:8).  Though  unseeii, 
he  is  loved  beyond  all  human  beings. 

“ I see  Thee  not,  I hear  Thee  not, 

Yet  art  Thou  oft  with  me; 

And  earth  hath  ne’er  so  dear  a spot, 

As  when  I meet  with  Thee.” 

Jesus  no  doubt  accommodated  himself  in  dress  and  general  appear- 
ance to  the  customs  of  his  age  and  people,  and  avoided  all  ostentation. 
He  probably  passed  unnoticed  through  busy  crowds.  But  to  the  closer 
observer  he  must  have  revealed  a spiritual  beauty  and  an  overawing 
majesty  in  his  countenance  and  personal  bearing.  This  helps  to  explain 
the  readiness  with  which  the  disciples,  forsaking  all  things,  followed  him 
in  boundless  reverence  and  devotion.  He  had  not  the  physiognomy  of 


168 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


a sinner.  He  had  more  than  the  physiognomy  of  a saint.  He  reflected 
from  his  eyes  and  countenance  the  serene  peace  and  celestial  purity  of  a 
sinless  soul  in  blessed  harmony  with  God.  His  presence  commanded 
reverence,  confidence  and  affection. 

In  the  absence  of  authentic  representation,  Christian  art  in  its  irrepress- 
ible  desire  to  exhibit  in  visible  form  the  fairest  among  the  children  of 
men,  was  left  to  its  own  imperfect  conception  of  ideal  beauty.  The 
church  under  persecution  in  the  first  three  centuries,  was  averse  to  pic- 
torial representations  of  Christ,  and  associated  with  him  in  his  state  of 
humiliation  (but  not  in  his  state  of  exaltation)  the  idea  of  uncomeliness, 
taking  too  literally  the  prophetic  description  of  the  suffering  Messiah  in 
the  twenty-second  Psalm  and  the  fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah.  The  vic- 
torious church  after  Constantine,  starting  from  the  Messianic  picture  in 
the  forty-fifth  Psalm  and  the  Song  of  Solomon,  saw  the  same  Lord  in 
heavenly  glory,  “fairer  than  the  children  of  men”  and  “altogether 
lovely.”  Yet  the  difference  was  not  so  great  as  it  is  sometimes  repre- 
sented. For  even  the  ante-Nicene  fathers  (especially  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria), besides  expressly  distinguishing  between  the  first  appearance  of 
Christ  in  lowliness  and  humility,  and  his  second  appearance  in  glory  and 
majesty,  did  not  mean  to  deny  to  the  Saviour  even  in  the  days  of  his 
flesh  a higher  order  of  spiritual  beauty,  “ the  glory  of  the  only-begotten 
of  the  Father  full  of  grace  and  truth,”  which  shone  through  the  veil  of 
his  humanity,  and  which  at  times,  as  on  the  mount  of  transfiguration, 
anticipated  his  future  glory.  “ Certainly,”  says  Jerome,  “ a flame  of  fire 
and  starry  brightness  flashed  from  his  eye,  and  the  majesty  of  the  God 
head  shone  in  his  face.” 

The  earliest  pictures  of  Christ,  in  the  Catacombs,  are  purely  symbolic, 
and  represent  him  under  the  figures  of  the  Lamb,  the  good  Shepherd, 
the  Fish.  The  last  has  reference  to  the  Greek  word  Ichthys , which  con- 
tains the  initials  of  the  words  ’I rjaovs  Xpurror  Oeov  *Y tbs  Siottjp,  “Jesus 
Christ,  Son  of  God,  Saviour.”  Real  pictures  of  Christ  in  the  early  church 
would  have  been  an  offence  to  the  Jewish,  and  a temptation  and  snare  to 
the  heathen  converts. 

The  first  formal  description  of  the  personal  appearance  of  Christ, 
which,  though  not  authentic  and  certainly  not  older  than  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, exerted  great  influence  on  the  pictorial  representations,  is  ascribed 
to  the  heathen  Publius  Lentulus,  a supposed  contemporary  of  Pilate 
and  “President  of  the  people  of  Jerusalem”  (there  was  no  such  office),  in 
an  apocryphal  Latin  letter  to  the  Roman  Senate,  which  was  first  discov- 
ered in  a MS.  copy  of  the  writings  of  Anselm  of  Canterbury  in  the  twelfth 
century,  and  published  with  slight  variations  by  Fabricius,  Carpzov, 
Gabler,  etc.  It  is  as  follows  : 

“ In  this  time  appeared  a man,  who  lives  till  now,  a man  endowed  with 
great  powers.  Men  call  him  a great  prophet ; his  own  disciples  term 
Him  the  Son  of  God.  His  name  is  Jesus  Christ.  He  restores  the  dead 


§ 18.  APOCRYPHAL  TRADITIONS. 


169 


to  life,  and  cures  tlie  sick  of  all  manner  of  diseases.  This  man  is  of 
noble  and  well-proportioned  stature,  with  a face  full  of  kindness  and  yet 
firmness,  so  that  the  beholders  both  love  Him  and  fear  Him.  His  hair  is 
of  the  color  of  wine,  and  golden  at  the  root ; straight,  and  without  lustre, 
but  from  the  level  of  the  ears  curling  and  glossy,  and  divided  down  the 
centre  after  the  fashion  of  the  Nazarenes  [Nazarites?]  His  forehead  is 
even  and  smooth,  his  face  without  wrinkle  or  blemish,  and  glowing  with 
a delicate  bloom.  His  countenance  is  frank  and  kind.  Nose  and  mouth 
are  in  no  way  faulty.  His  beard  is  full,  of  the  same  hazel  color  as  his 
hair,  not  long,  but  forked.  His  eyes  are  blue,  and  extremely  brilliant. 
In  reproof  and  rebuke  he  is  formidable;  in  exhortation  and  teaching, 
gentle  and  amiable.  He  has  never  been  seen  to  laugh,  but  oftentimes  to 
weep.  ( numquam  visus  est  rider e,  Jlere  autem  scepe).  His  person  is  tall  and 
erect;  his  hands  and  limbs  beautiful  and  straight.  In  speaking  he  is 
deliberate  and  grave,  and  little  given  to  loquacity.  In  beauty  he  sur- 
passes the  children  of  men.” 

Another  description  is  found  in  the  works  of  the  Greek  theologian, 
John  op  Damascus,  of  the  8tli  century  ( Epist . ad  Theoph.  Imp.  de  vene- 
randis  Imag.,  spurious),  and  a similar  one  in  the  Church  History  of 
Nicephorus  (I.  40),  of  the  14th  century.  They  represent  Christ  as  re- 
sembling his  mother,  and  ascribe  to  him  a stately  person  though  slightly 
stooping,  beautiful  eyes,  blond,  long,  and  curly  hair,  pale,  olive  com- 
plexion, long  fingers,  and  a look  expressive  of  nobility,  wisdom,  and 
patience. 

On  the  ground  of  these  descriptions,  and  of  the  Abgar  and  the  Vero- 
nica legends,  arose  a vast  number  of  pictures  of  Christ,  which  are  divided 
into  two  classes : the  Salvatoi • pictures,  with  the  expression  of  calm 
serenity  and  dignity,  without  the  faintest  mark  of  grief,  and  the  Ecce 
Homo  pictures  of  the  suffering  Saviour  with  the  crown  of  thorns.  The 
greatest  painters  and  sculptors  have  exhausted  the  resources  of  their 
genius  in  representations  of  Christ ; but  neither  color  nor  chisel  nor  pen 
can  do  more  than  produce  a feeble  reflection  of  the  beauty  and  glory  of 
Him  who  is  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Son  of  Man. 

Among  modem  biographers  of  Christ,  Dr.  Sepp  (Rom.  Cath.,  Das  Leben 
Jesu  Ckristi,  1865,  vol.  VI.  312  sqq.)  defends  the  legend  of  St.  Veronica 
of  the  Herodian  family,  and  the  genuineness  of  the  picture  of  the  suffer- 
ing Saviour  with  the  crown  of  thorns  which  he  impressed  on  her  silken 
veil.  He  rejects  the  philological  explanation  of  the  legend  from  “ the 
true  image  ” (vera  (Ikvv  = Veronica),  and  derives  the  name  from  (fifpcvlKrj 
(Berenice),  the  Victorious.  But  Bishop  Hefele  (Art.  Christusbilder , in 
the  Cath.  Kirchen-Lexikon  of  Wetzer  and  Welte,  II.  519-524)  is  inclined, 
with  Grimm,  to  identify  Veronica  with  the  Berenice  who  is  said  to  have 
erected  a statue  to  Christ  at  Caesarea  Philippi  (Euseb.  VII.  18),  and  to 
see  in  the  Veronica  legend  only  the  Latin  version  of  the  Abgar  legend  of 
the  Greek  Church.  Dr.  Hase  [Leben  Jesu,  p.  79)  ascribes  to  Christ  manly 


170 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


beauty,  firm  health,  and  delicate,  yet  not  very  characteristic  features. 
He  quotes  John  20  : 14  and  Luke  24  : 16,  where  it  is  said  that  his  friends 
did  not  recognize  him,  but  these  passages  refer  only  to  the  mysterious 
appearances  of  the  risen  Lord.  Kenan  ( Vie  de  Jesus , ch.  XXIV.  p.  403) 
describes  him  in  the  frivolous  style  of  a novelist,  as  a dou:c  Galileen , of 
calm  and  dignified  attitude,  as  a beau  jeune  homme  who  made  a deep  im- 
pression upon  women,  esjiecially  Mary  of  Magdala ; even  a proud  Roman 
lady,  the  wife  of  Pontius  Pilate,  when  she  caught  a glimpse  of  him  from 
the  window  (?),  was  enchanted,  dreamed  of  him  in  the  night  and  was 
frightened  at  the  prospect  of  his  death.  Dr.  Keim  (I.  463)  infers  from 
his  character,  as  described  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels,  that  he  was  per- 
haps not  strikingly  handsome,  yet  certainly  noble,  lovely,  manly,  healthy 
and  vigorous,  looking  like  a prophet,  commanding  reverence,  making 
men,  women,  children,  sick  and  poor  people  feel  happy  in  his  presence. 
Canon  Farrar  (I.  150)  adopts  the  view  of  Jerome  and  Augustine,  and 
speaks  of  Christ  as  “full  of  mingled  majesty  and  tenderness  in — 

‘ That  face 

How  beautiful,  if  sorrow  had  not  made 

Sorrow  more  beautiful  than  beauty’s  self.’  ” 

On  artistic  representations  of  Christ  see  J.  B.  Carpzov  : De  oris  et 
coiporis  J.  Christi  forma  Pseudo-Lent  uli,  J.  Damasceni  et  Niceplioi'i  ])roso- 
pographice.  Helmst.  1777.  P.  E.  Jablonski  : l)e  origine  imaginum  Christi 
Domini.  Lugd.  Batav.  1804.  W.  Grevim  : Die  Sage  vom  Ursprung  der  Chris- 
tusbilder.  Berlin,  1843.  Dr.  Legis  Gluckselig  : Christus-Arcluiologie  ; 
Das  Buch  von  Jesus  Christus  und  seinem  wahren  Ebenbilde.  Prag,  1863. 
4to.  Mrs.  Jameson  and  Lady  Eastlake  : The  History  of  our  Lord  as 
exemplified  in  Works  of  Art  (with  illustrations).  Lond.,  2d  ed.  1865, 
2 vols.  Cowper  : Apocr.  Gospels.  Lond.  1867,  pp.  217-226.  Hase  : 
Leben  Jesu , pp.  76-80  (5th  ed.).  Keim  : Gesch.  Jesu  von  Naz.  I.  459-464. 
Farrar  : Life  of  Christ.  Lond.  1874,  I.  148-150,  312-313 ; II.  464. 

III.  The  Testimony  op  Josephus  on  John  the  Baptist. — Antiq.  Jud. 
xviii.  c.  5,  l 2.  Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  more  famous  passage  of 
Christ  which  we  have  discussed  in  § 14  (p.  92),  the  passage  on  John  is 
undoubtedly  genuine  and  so  accepted  by  most  scholars.  It  frilly  and  in- 
dependently confirms  the  account  of  the  Gospels  on  John’s  work  and 
martyrdom,  and  furnishes,  indirectly,  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  historical 
character  of  their  account  of  Christ,  for  whom  he  merely  prepared  the 
way.  We  give  it  in  Wliiston’s  translation:  “Now  some  of  the  Jewrs 
thought  that  the  destruction  of  Herod’s  army  came  from  God,  and  that 
very  justly,  as  a punishment  of  what  he  did  against  John,  wrho  wras  called 
the  Baptist ; for  Herod  slew  him,  who  wras  a good  man  (ayuSbv  m>8pa)t 
and  commanded  the  Jews  to  exercise  virtue,  both  as  to  righteousness  to- 
wards one  another,  and  piety  towards  God,  and  so  to  come  to  baptism  J 


§ 18.  APOCRYPHAL  TRADITIONS. 


171 


for  that  the  washing  [with  water]  would  be  acceptable  to  him,  if  they 
made  use  of  it,  not  in  order  to  the  putting  away  [or  the  remission]  of 
some  sins  [only],  but  for  the  purification  of  the  body : supposing  still 
that  the  soul  was  thoroughly  purified  beforehand  by  righteousness. 
Now  when  [many]  others  came  in  crowds  about  him,  for  they  were  greatly 
moved  [or  pleased]  by  hearing  his  words,  Herod,  who  feared  lest  the 
great  influence  John  had  over  the  people  might  put  it  into  his  power 
and  inclination  to  raise  a rebellion  (for  they  seemed  ready  to  do  any 
thing  he  should  advise),  thought  it  best,  by  putting  him  to  death,  to  pre- 
vent any  miscliief  he  might  cause,  and  not  bring  himself  into  difficulties, 
by  sparing  a man  who  might  make  him  repent  of  it  when  it  should  be 
too  late.  Accordingly  he  was  sent  a prisoner,  out  of  Herod’s  suspicious 
temper,  to  Machserus,  the  castle  I before  mentioned,  and  was  there  put 
to  death.  Now  the  Jews  had  an  opinion  that  the  destruction  of  this 
army  was  sent  as  a punishment  upon  Herod,  and  a mark  of  God’s  dis- 
pleasure to  him.” 

IV.  The  Testimony  of  Mara  to  Christ,  a.d.  74. — This  extra-biblical 
notice  of  Christ,  made  known  first  in  1865,  and  referred  to  above  (§  14,  p. 
94)  reads  as  follows  (as  translated  from  the  Syriac  by  Cureton  and 
Pratten)  : 

“ What  are  we  to  say,  when  the  wise  are  dragged  by  force  by  hands  of 
tyrants,  and  their  wisdom  is  deprived  of  its  freedom  by  slander,  and  they 
are  plundered  for  their  [superior]  intelligence,  without  [the  opportunity 
of  making]  a defence  ? [They  are  not  wholly  to  be  pitied.]  For  what 
benefit  did  the  Athenians  obtain  by  putting  Socrates  to  death,  seeing 
that  they  received  [as]  retribution  for  it  famine  and  pestilence  ? Or  the 
people  of  Samos  by  the  burning  of  Pythagoras,  seeing  that  in  one  hour 
the  whole  of  their  country  was  covered  with  sand  ? Or  the  Jews  [by  the 
murder]  of  their  Wise  King,  seeing  that  from  that  very  time  their  king- 
dom was  driven  away  [from  them]  ? For  with  justice  did  God  grant  a 
recompense  to  the  wisdom  of  [all]  three  of  them.  For  the  Athenians 
died  by  famine ; and  the  people  of  Samos  were  covered  by  the  sea  without 
remedy ; and  the  Jews,  brought  to  destruction  and  expelled  from  their 
kingdom,  are  driven  away  into  every  land.  [Nay],  Socrates  did  not  die,  be- 
cause of  Plato  ; nor  yet  Pythagoras,  because  of  the  statue  of  Hera ; nor 
yet  the  Wise  King,  because  of  the  new  laws  which  he  enacted.” 

The  nationality  and  position  of  Mara  are  unknown.  Dr.  Payne  Smith 
supposes  him  to  have  been  a Persian.  He  wrote  from  prison  and  wished 
to  die,  “by  what  kind  of  death  concerns  me  not.”  In  the  beginning  of 
his  letter  Mara  says : “On  this  account,  lo,  I have  written  for  thee  this 
record,  [touching]  that  which  I have  by  careful  observation  discovered  in 
the  world.  For  the  kind  of  life  men  lead  has  been  carefully  observed  by 
me.  I tread  the  path  of  learning,  and  from  the  study  of  Greek  philoso- 
phy have  I found  out  all  these  things,  although  they  suffered  shipwreck 


172 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


when  the  birth  of  life  took  place.”  The  birth  of  life  may  refer  to  the 
appearance  of  Christianity  in  the  world,  or  to  Mara’s  own  conversion. 
But  there  is  no  other  indication  that  he  was  a Christian.  The  advice 
he  gives  to  his  son  is  simply  to  “devote  himself  to  wisdom,  the  fount  of 
all  things  good,  the  treasure  that  fails  not.” 


§ 19.  The  Resurrection  of  Christ. 

The  resurrection  of  Christ  from  the  dead  is  reported  by  the 
four  Gospels,  taught  in  the  Epistles,  believed  throughout  Chris- 
tendom, and  celebrated  on  every  Lord’s  Day,”  as  an  historical 
fact,  as  the  crowning  miracle  and  divine  seal  of  his  whole  work, 
as  the  foundation  of  the  hopes  of  believers,  as  the  pledge  of 
their  own  future  resurrection.  It  is  represented  in  the  New 
Testament  both  as  an  act  of  the  Almighty  Father  who  raised 
his  Son  from  the  dead,1  and  as  an  act  of  Christ  himself,  who 
had  the  power  to  lay  down  his  life  and  to  take  it  again.2  The 
ascension  was  the  proper  conclusion  of  the  resurrection:  the 
risen  life  of  our  Lord,  who  is  “ the  Resurrection  and  the  Life,” 
could  not  end  in  another  death  on  earth,  but  must  continue  in 
eternal  glory  in  heaven.  Hence  St.  Paul  says,  (r  Christ  being 
raised  from  .the  dead  dieth  no  more ; death  no  more  hath 
dominion  over  him.  For  the  death  that  he  died  he  died  unto 
sin  once : but  the  life  that  he  liveth,  he  liveth  unto  God.”  3 
The  Christian  church  rests  on  thej-esurrection  of  its  Founder. 
Without  this  fact  the  church  could  never  have  been  born,  or  if 
born,  it  would  soon  have  died  a natural  death.  The  miracle  of 
the  resurrection  and  the  existence  of  Christianity  are  so  closely 

1 Acts  2 : 24,  32;  Rom.  6 : 4 ; 10  : 9 ; 1 Cor.  15  : 15  ; Eph.  1:20;  1 Pet.  1 : 21. 

2 John  2 : 19;  10  : 17,  18.  In  like  manner  the  first  advent  of  the  Lord  is 
represented  as  his  own  voluntary  act  and  as  a mission  from  the  Father,  John 
8 : 42  : 4y&>  4k  rod  &eov  4ffi\&ev  Kal  ^koo'  ovSe  yap  iir  ifiavrov  4\‘fiAv&a,  a\A’  e/ceii/os 
fee  aireffrciA^v. 

3 Rom.  6 . 9,  10.  Neander  [Leben  Jesu,  pp.  596  and  597  of  the  6th  Germ, 
ed.)  makes  some  excellent  remarks  on  this  inseparable  connection  between 
the  resurrection  and  the  ascension,  and  says  that  the  ascension  would  stand 
fast  as  a supernatural  fact  even  if  Luke  had  not  said  a word  about  it.  A 
temporary  resurrection  followed  by  another  death  could  never  have  become 
the  foundation  of  a church. 


§ 19.  TIIE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST.  173 

connected  that  they  must  stand  or  fall  together.  If  Christ  was 
raised  from  the  dead,  then  all  his  other  miracles  are  sure,  and 
our  faith  is  impregnable ; if  he  was  not  raised,  he  died  in  vain, 
and  our  faith  is  vain.  It  was  only  his  resurrection  that  made 
his  death  available  for  our  atonement,  justification  and  salva- 
tion ; without  the  resurrection,  his  death  would  be  the  grave  of 
our  hopes ; we  should  be  still  unredeemed  and  under  the  power 
of  our  sins.  A gospel  of  a dead  Saviour  would  be  a contra- 
diction and  wretched  delusion.  This  is  the  reasoning  of  St. 
Paul,  and  its  force  is  irresistible. 1 

The  resurrection  of  Christ  is  therefore  emphatically  a test 
question  upon  which  depends  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the 
Christian  religion.  It  is  either  the  greatest  miracle  or  the 
greatest  delusion  which  history  records.2 

Christ  had  predicted  both  his  crucifixion  and  his  resurrection, 
but  the  former  was  a stumbling-block  to  the  disciples,  the  latter 
a mystery  which  they  could  not  understand  till  after  the  event.* 
They  no  doubt  expected  that  he  would  soon  establish  his  Mes- 
sianic kingdom  on  earth.  Hence  their  utter  disappointment  and 
downheartedness  after  the  crucifixion.  The  treason  of  one  of 
their  own  number,  the  triumph  of  the  hierarchy,  the  fickleness 
of  the  people,  the  death  and  burial  of  the  beloved  Master,  had 
in  a few  hours  rudely  blasted  their  Messianic  hopes  and  exposed 
them  to  the  contempt  and  ridicule  of  their  enemies.  For  two 
days  they  were  trembling  on  the  brink  of  despair.  But  on  the 
third  day,  behold,  the  same  disciples  underwent  a complete  rev- 
olution from  despondency  to  hope,  from  timidity  to  courage, 
from  doubt  to  faith,  and  began  to  proclaim  the  gospel  of  the 

1 1 Cor.  15  : 13-19  ; comp.  Rom.  4 : 25,  where  Paul  represents  Christ’s  death 
and  resurrection  in  inseparable  connection,  as  the  sum  and  substance  of  the 
whole  gospel. 

5 Ewald  makes  the  striking  remark  (YI.  90)  that  the  resurrection  is  “the 
culmination  of  all  the  miraculous  events  which  are  conceivable  from  the 
beginning  of  history  to  its  close.” 

3 Matt.  16  : 21-23  ; 17 : 9,  22,  23  ; 20  : 17-20 ; Mark  8 : 31 ; 9 : 9,  10,  31,  32 
(“they  understood  not  that  saying,  and  were  afraid  to  ask  him  ”) ; Luke  9 : 22, 
44,  45;  18:31-34;  24:6-8;  John  2:21,  22;  3:14;  8:28;  10:17,  18; 
12:32. 


174 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


resurrection  in  the  face  of  an  unbelieving  world  and  at  the  peril 
of  their  lives.  This  revolution  was  not  isolated,  but  general 
among  them  ; it  was  not  the  result  of  an  easy  credulity,  hut 
brought  about  in  spite  of  doubt  and  hesitation ; 1 it  was  not 
superficial  and  momentary,  but  radical  and  lasting ; it  affected 
not  only  the  apostles,  but  the  whole  history  of  the  world.  It 
reached  even  the  leader  of  the  persecution,  Saul  of  Tarsus,  one 
of  the  clearest  and  strongest  intellects,  and  converted  him  into 
the  most  devoted  and  faithful  champion  of  this  very  gospel  to 
the  hour  of  his  martyrdom. 

This  is  a fact  patent  to  every  reader  of  the  closing  chapters 
of  the  Gospels,  and  is  freely  admitted  even  by  the  most  ad- 
vanced skeptics.2 

The  question  now  rises  whether  this  inner  revolution  in  the 
life  of  the  disciples,  with  its  incalculable  effects  upon  the  for- 
tunes of  mankind,  can  be  rationally  explained  without  a corre- 
sponding outward  revolution  in  the  history  of  Christ ; in  other 

1 The  devoted  women  went  to  the  sepulchre  on  the  first  Christian  Sabbath, 
not  to  see  it  empty  but  to  embalm  the  body  with  spices  for  its  long  rest, 
Mark  16:1;  Luke  23:56;  and  when  they  told  the  eleven  what  they  saw, 
their  words  seemed  to  them  “as  idle  talk,”  and  “ they  disbelieved  them,” 
Luke  24:11.  Comp.  Matt.  28:17  (“some  doubted”);  Mark  16:8  (“they 
were  afraid  ”) ; John  20 : 25. 

5 Dr.  Baur  states  the  contrast  tersely  thus : “ Zwischen  dem  Tod  [Jesu\  und 
seiner  Auferstehung  liegt  ein  so  tiefes  undurchdringliches  Dunkel , class  man 
nach  so  gewallsam  zerrissenem  und  so  wundervoll  wiederhergestdltem  Zusammen- 
hange  sich  gleichsam  avf  einem  neuen  Schauplatz  der  Oeschichte  sieht.' ’ Com- 
pare his  remarks  at  the  close  of  this  section.  Dr.  Ewald  describes  the  depres- 
sion and  sudden  exaltation  of  the  disciples  more  fully  with  his  usual  force 
(vol.  vi.  54sqq.).  I will  quote  also  the  description  of  Renan,  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  first  chapter  of  his  work,  Les  Apotres : “ Jesus,  quoique  parlant 
sans  cesse  de  resurrection , de  nouvelle  vie,  n' avail  jamais  dit  Men  clairement 
quHl  ressusciterait  en  sa  chair.  Les  disciples,  dans  les  premieres  heures  qu% 
suivirent  sa  mort,  n'avaient  d cet  egard  aucune  esperance  arretee.  Les  senti- 
ments dont  ils  nous  font  la  naive  confidence  supposent  meme  qu'ils  croyaient 
toutfirii.  Ils  pleurent  et  enterrent  leur  ami,  sinon  comme  un  mort  vulgaire,  du 
moins  comme  une  per sonne  dont  la  perte  est  irreparable  (Marc  16 : 10 ; Luc 
24:17,  21);  ils  sont  tristes  et  abattus ; Vespoir  qu'ils  avaient  eu  de  le  voir 
realiser  le  salut  d? Israel  est  convaincu  de  vanite  ; on  dirait  des  hommes  qui  out 
perdu  une  grande  et  chere  illusion.  Mais  V enthousiasme  et  V amour  ne  connais- 
sent  par  les  situations  sans  issue.  Ils  se  jouent  de  Vimpossible , et  plutot  qu€ 
d'abdiquer  V esperance,  Us  font  violence  a toute  realite etc. 


§ 19.  TIIE  RESU ERECTION  OF  CHRIST.  175 

words,  whether  the  professed  faith  of  the  disciples  in  the  risen 
Christ  was  true  and  real,  or  a hypocritical  lie,  or  an  honest  self- 
delusion. 

There  are  four  possible  theories  which  have  been  tried  again 
and  again,  and  defended  with  as  much  learning  and  ingenuity  as 
can  be  summoned  to  their  aid.  Historical  questions  are  not  like 
mathematical  problems.  No  argument  in  favor  of  the  resurrec- 
tion will  avail  with  those  critics  who  start  with  the  philosophi- 
cal assumption  that  miracles  are  impossible,  and  still  less  with 
those  who  deny  not  only  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  but  even 
the  immortality  of  the  soul.  But  facts  are  stubborn,  and  if  a 
critical  hypothesis  can  be  proven  to  be  psychologically  and  his- 
torically impossible  and  unreasonable,  the  result  is  fatal  to  the 
philosophy  which  underlies  the  critical  hypothesis.  It  is  not 
the  business  of  the  historian  to  construct  a history  from  precon- 
ceived notions  and  to  adjust  it  to  his  own  liking,  but  to  repro- 
duce it  from  the  best  evidence  and  to  let  it  speak  for  itself. 

1.  The  historical  view,  presented  by  the  Gospels  and  believed 
in  the  Christian  church  of  every  denomination  and  sect.  The 
resurrection  of  Christ  was  an  actual  though  miraculous  event, 
in  harmony  with  his  previous  history  and  character,  and  in  ful- 
filment of  his  own  prediction.  It  was  a re-animation  of  the 
dead  body  of  Jesus  by  a return  of  his  soul  from  the  spirit-wTorld, 
and  a rising  of  body  and  soul  from  the  grave  to  a new  life, 
which  after  repeated  manifestations  to  believers  during  a short 
period  of  forty  days  entered  into  glory  by  the  ascension  to 
heaven.  The  object  of  the  manifestations  was  not  only  to  con- 
vince the  apostles  personally  of  the  resurrection,  but  to  make 
them  witnesses  of  the  resurrection  and  heralds  of  salvation  to 
all  the  world.1 

Truth  compels  us  to  admit  that  there  are  serious  difficulties 
in  harmonizing  the  accounts  of  the  evangelists,  and  in  forming  a 
consistent  conception  of  the  nature  of  Christ’s  resurrection-body, 
hovering  as  it  wrere  between  heaven  and  earth,  and  oscillating  for 

1 Matt.  28:18-20;  Mark  16:15,16;  Luke  24:46-48;  John  20 : 21-23 ; 
Acts  1 : 8. 


176 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


forty  days  between  a natural  and  a supernatural  state,  of  a body 
clothed  with  flesh  and  blood  and  bearing  the  wound-prints,  and 
yet  so  spiritual  as  to  appear  and  disappear  through  closed  doors 
and  to  ascend  visibly  to  heaven.  But  these  difficulties  are  not 
so  great  as  those  which  are  created  by  a denial  of  the  fact  itself. 
The  former  can  be  measurably  solved,  the  latter  cannot.  We 
do  not  know  all  the  details  and  circumstances  which  might  ena- 
ble us  to  clearly  trace  the  order  of  events.  But  among  all  the 
variations  the  great  central  fact  of  the  resurrection  itself  and  its 
principal  features  “ stand  out  all  the  more  sure.” 1 The  period 


1 So  Meyer  says,  who  is  one  of  the  fairest  as  well  as  most  careful  exegetes 
(Com.  on  John , 5th  Germ,  ed.,  p.  043).  I will  add  the  observations  of  Canon 
Farrar  ( Life  of  Christ,  vol.  II.  432):  “The  lacuna,  the  compressions,  the 
variations,  the  actual  differences,  the  subjectivity  of  the  narrators  as  affected 
by  spiritual  revelations,  render  all  harmonies  at  the  best  uncertain.  Our  be- 
lief in  the  resurrection,  as  an  historic  fact,  as  absolutely  well  attested  to  us 
by  subsequent  and  contemporary  circumstances  as  any  other  event  in  history, 
rests  on  grounds  far  deeper,  wider,  more  spiritual,  more  eternal,  than  can  be 
shaken  by  divergences  of  which  we  can  only  say  that  they  are  not  necessarily 
contradictions,  but  of  which  the  true  solution  is  no  longer  attainable.  Hence 
the  ‘ ten  discrepancies  ’ which  have  been  dwelt  on  since  the  days  of  Celsus, 
have  never  for  one  hour  shaken  the  faith  of  Christendom.  The  phenomena 
presented  by  the  narratives  are  exactly  such  as  we  should  expect,  derived  as 
they  are  from  different  witnesses,  preserved  at  first  in  oral  tradition  only,  and 
written  1,800  years  ago  at  a period  when  minute  circumstantial  accuracy,  as 
distinguished  from  perfect  truthfulness,  was  little  regarded.  St.  Paul,  surely 
no  imbecile  or  credulous  enthusiast,  vouches,  both  for  the  reality  of  the 
appearances,  and  also  for  the  fact  that  the  vision  by  which  he  was  himself 
converted  came,  at  a long  interval  after  the  rest,  to  him  as  to  the  1 abortive- 
born’  of  the  apostolic  family  (1  Cor.  15:4-8).  If  the  narratives  of  Christ’s 
appearance  to  his  disciples  were  inventions,  how  came  they  to  possess  the 
severe  and  simple  character  which  shows  no  tinge  of  religious  excitement  ? 
If  those  appearances  were  purely  subjective , how  can  we  account  for  their 
sudden,  rapid,  and  total  cessation  ? As  Lange  finely  says,  the  great  fugue  of 
the  first  Easter  tidings  has  not  come  to  us  as  a ‘ monotonous  chorale,’  and 
mere  boyish  verbal  criticism  cannot  understand  the  common  feeling  and  har- 
mony which  inspire  the  individual  vibrations  of  those  enthusiastic  and  multi- 
tudinous voices  (vol.  V.  61).  Prolessor  Westcott,  with  his  usual  profundity 
and  insight,  points  out  the  differences  of  purpose  in  the  narrative  of  the  four 
Evangelists.  St.  Matthew  dwells  chiefly  on  the  majesty  and  glory  of  the 
Resurrection  ; Sk  Mark,  both  in  the  original  part  and  in  the  addition  (Mark 
16 : 9-20),  insists  upon  it  as  a iact ; St.  Luke,  as  a spiritual  necessity  ; St. 
John,  as  a touchstone  of  character  (lntrod.  310-315).” 


§ 19.  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST. 


177 


of  the  forty  days  is  in  the  nature  of  the  case  the  most  myste- 
rious in  the  life  of  Christ,  and  transcends  all  ordinary  Christian 
experience.  The  Christophanies  resemble  in  some  respects  the 
theophanies  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  were  granted  only  to 
few  believers,  yet  for  the  general  benefit.  At  all  events  the 
fact  of  the  resurrection  furnishes  the  only  key  for  the  solution 
of  the  psychological  problem  of  the  sudden,  radical,  and  perma- 
nent change  in  the  mind  and  conduct  of  the  disciples ; it  is  the 
necessary  link  in  the  chain  which  connects  their  history  before 
and  after  that  event.  Their  faith  in  the  resurrection  was  too 
clear,  too  strong,  too  steady,  too  effective  to  be  explained  in  any 
other  way.  They  showed  the  strength  and  boldness  of  their 
conviction  by  soon  returning  to  Jerusalem,  the  post  of  danger, 
and  founding  there,  in  the  very  face  of  the  hostile  Sanhedrin, 
the  mother-church  of  Christendom. 

2.  The  theory  of  fraud.  The  apostles  stole  and  hid  the  body 
of  Jesus,  and  deceived  the  world.1 

This  infamous  lie  carries  its  refutation  on  its  face:  for  if 
the  Roman  soldiers  who  watched  the  grave  at  the  express  re- 
quest of  the  priests  and  Pharisees,  were  asleep,  they  could  not 
see  the  thieves,  nor  would  they  have  proclaimed  thfeir  military 
crime ; if  they,  or  only  some  of  them,  were  awake,  they  would 
have  prevented  the  theft.  As  to  the  disciples,  they  were  too 

1 This  theory  was  invented  by  the  Jewish  priests  who  crucified  the  Lord,  and 
knew  it  to  be  false,  Matt.  27  : 62-66  ; 28  : 12-15.  The  lie  was  repeated  and 
believed,  like  many  other  lies,  by  credulous  infidels,  first  by  malignant  Jews  at 
the  time  of  Justin  Martyr,  then  by  Celsus,  who  learned  it  from  them,  but 
wavered  between  it  and  the  vision-theory,  and  was  renewed  in  the  eighteenth 
century  by  Reimarus  in  the  Wolfenbiittel  Fragments.  Salvador,  a French  Jew, 
has  again  revived  and  modified  it  by  assuming  (according  to  Hase,  Geschichte 
Jesn,  p.  132)  that  Jesus  was  justly  crucified,  and  was  saved  by  the  wife  of 
Pilate  through  Joseph  of  Arimathsea  or  some  Galilean  women ; that  he  retired 
among  the  Essenes  and  appeared  secretly  to  a few  of  his  disciples.  (See  his 
Jesus  Christ  et  sa  doctrine , Par.  1838.)  Strauss  formerly  defended  the  vision- 
hypothesis  (see  below),  but  at  the  close  of  his  life,  when  he  exchanged  his 
idealism  and  pantheism  for  materialism  and  atheism,  he  seems  to  have  relapsed 
into  this  disgraceful  theory  of  fraud;  for  in  his  Old  and  New  Faith  (1873) 
he  was  not  ashamed  to  call  the  resurrection  of  Christ  “a  world-historical 
humbug”  Truth  or  falsehood  : there  is  no  middle  ground. 


178 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


timid  and  desponding  at  the  time  to  venture  on  such  a daring  act, 
and  too  honest  to  cheat  the  worldL^  And  finally  a self-invented 
falsehood  could  not  give  them  the  courage  and  constancy  of 
faith  for  the  proclamation  of  the  resurrection  at  the  peril  of 
their  lives.  The  whole  theory  is  a wicked  absurdity,  an  insult 
to  the  common  sense  and  honor  of  mankind. 

3.  The  swoon-tiieory.  The  physical  life  of  Jesus  was  not 
extinct,  but  only  exhausted,  and  was  restored  by  the  tender  care 
of  his  friends  and  disciples,  or  (as  some  absurdly  add)  by  his 
own  medical  skill ; and  after  a brief  period  he  quietly  died  a 
natural  death.1 * 

Josephus,  Valerius  Maximus,  psychological  and  medical  au- 
thorities have  been  searched  and  appealed  to  for  examples  of 
such  apparent  resurrections  from  a trance  or  asphyxy,  especially 
on  the  third  day,  which  is  supposed  to  be  a critical  turning-point 
for  life  or  putrefaction. 

But  besides  insuperable  physical  difficulties — as  the  wounds 
and  loss  of  blood  from  the  very  heart  pierced  by  the  spear  of 
the  Roman  soldier — this  theory  utterly  fails  to  account  for  the 
moral  effect.  A brief  sickly  existence  of  Jesus  in  need  of  medi- 
cal care,  and  terminating  in  his  natural  death  and  final  burial, 
without  even  the  glory  of  martyrdom  which  attended  the  cruci- 
fixion, far  from  restoring  the  faith  of  the  apostles,  would  have 
only  in  the  end  deepened  their  gloom  and  driven  them  to  utter 
despair.3 

1 The  Scheintod- Hypoth ese  (as  the  Germans  call  it)  was  ably  advocated  by 
Paulus  of  Heidelberg  (1800),  and  modified  by  Gfrorer  (1838),  who  afterwards 
became  a Roman  Catholic.  We  are  pained  to  add  Dr.  Hase  ( Oesch . Jesu,  1876, 
p.  601),  who  finds  it  necessary,  however,  to  call  to  aid  a “ special  providence,” 
to  maintain  some  sort  of  consistency  with  his  former  advocacy  of  the  miracle 
of  the  resurrection,  when  he  truly  said  ( Leben  Jesu , p.  269,  5th  ed.  1865): 

“Sonach  rulit  die  Wahrheit  der  Anferstehung  unerschutterlich  avfdem  Zeugnisse , 
ja  auf  dem  Dasein  der  apostolischen  Kir che.  ” 

* Dr.  Strauss  fin  his  second  Leben  Jesu,  1864,  p.  298)  thus  strikingly  and 
conclusively  refutes  the  swoon-theory : ‘ ‘ Ein  hcdbtodt  aus  dem  Orabe  Her - 
rorgekrochener,  siech  Umherschleichender,  der  drztlichen  Pflege,  des  Vei'bandes, 
der  Stdrkung  und  Schonung  Bedurf tiger,  und  am  Ende  dock  dem  Leiden  Erlie - 
gender  konnte  auf  die  Junger  unmbglicli  den  Eindruck  des  Siegers  uber  Tod  und 


§ 19.  THE  RES U ERECTION  OF  CHRIST. 


179 


4.  The  vision-theory.  Christ  rose  merely  in  the  imagina- 
tion of  his  friends,  who  mistook  a subjective  vision  or  dream 
for  actual  reality,  and  were  thereby  encouraged  to  proclaim  their 
faith  in  the  resurrection  at  the  risk  of  death.  Their  wish  was 
father  to  the  belief,  their  belief  was  father  to  the  fact,  and  the 
belief,  once  started,  spread  with  the  power  of  a religious  epidemic 
from  person  to  person  and  from  place  to  place.  The  Christian 
society  wrought  the  miracle  by  its  intense  love  for  Christ.  Ac- 
cordingly the  resurrection  does  not  belong  to  the  history  of  Christ 
at  all,  but  to  the  inner  life  of  his  disciples.  It  is  merely  the  em- 
bodiment of  their  reviving  faith. 

This  hypothesis  was  invented  by  a heathen  adversary  in  the 
second  century  and  soon  buried  out  of  sight,  but  rose  to  new 
life  in  the  nineteenth,  and  spread  with  epidemical  rapidity  among 
skeptical  critics  in  Germany,  France,  Holland  and  England.1 

Grab , des  Lebensfursten  machen,  der  ihrem  spdtern  Auftreten  zu  Grunde  lag. 
Ein  solches  Wiederaujleben  hd tte  den  Eindruck , den  er  im  Leben  und  Tode  auf 
ste  gemacht  hatte , nur  schwachen , denselben  hochstens  elegisch  ausklingen  lassen , 
unmoglich  aber  ihre  Trauer  in  Beigeisterung  verwandeln , ihre  Verehrung  zur  An- 
betung  steigem  ktinnen"  Dr.  Hase  (p.  603)  unjustly  calls  this  exposure  of  the 
absurdity  of  his  own  view,  “ Straussische  Tendenzmalerei .”  Even  more  effective 
is  the  refutation  of  the  swoon-theory  by  Dr.  Keim  ( Leben  Jesu  v.  Naz.  III.  576) : 
uUnd  dann  das  Unmoglichste : der  arme , schwache , hranke , muhsam  auf  den 
Fussen  erhaltene , versteckte,  verkleidete , schliesslich  hinsterbende  Jesus  ein  Gegen • 
stand  des  Glaubens , des  Hochgefuhles,  des  Triumphes  seiner  Anhdnger,  ein  aufer- 
8tandener  Sieger  und  Gottessolin  ! In  der  That  hier  beginnt  die  Tlieorie  armselig , 
dbgeschmackt,  ja  verwerflich  zu  werden , indem  sie  die  Apostel  als  arme  Betrogene , 
Oder  gar  mit  Jesus  selber  als  Betruger  zeigt.  Denn  vom  Scheintod  hatte  man 
auch  dama.ls  einen  Begriff,  und  die  Lage  Jesu  musste  zeigen}  dass  hier  von  Aufer- 
stehung  nicht  die  Rede  war ; Melt  man  ihn  doch  fur  auferstanden , gab  er  sich 
selbst  als  auferstanden,  so  feldte  das  nuchteme  JDenken , und  hutete  er  sich  gar, 
seinen  Zustand  zu  verrathen , so  fehlte  am  Ende  auch  die  Ehrlichkeit.  Aus 
alien  diesen  Grunden  ist  der  Scheintod  von  der  Neuzeit  fast  ausnahmslos  ver- 
worfen  worden 

1 The  vision-hypothesis  ( Visions- Hypothese)  was  first  suggested  by  the  hea- 
then Celsus  (see  Keim,  III.  577),  and  in  a more  respectful  form  by  the  Jewish 
philosopher  Spinoza,  and  elaborately  carried  out  by  Strauss  and  Renan,  with 
the  characteristic  difference,  however,  that  Strauss  traces  the  resurrection 
dream  to  the  apostles  in  Galilee,  Renan  (after  Celsus)  to  Mary  Magdalene  in 
Jerusalem,  saying,  in  his  Life  of  Jesus  (almost  blasphemously),  that  “ the 
passion  of  a hallucinated  woman  gave  to  the  world  a risen  God ! ” In  his 
work  on  the  Apostles,  Renan  enters  more  fully  into  the  question  and  again 


180 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.  D.  1-100. 


The  advocates  of  this  hypothesis  appeal  first  and  chiefly  to 
the  vision  of  St.  Paul  on  the  way  to  Damascus,  which  occurred 
several  years  later,  and  is  nevertheless  put  on  a level  with  the 
former  appearances  to  the  older  apostles  (1  Cor.  15:8);  next  to 
supposed  analogies  in  the  history  of  religious  enthusiasm  and 
mysticism,  such  as  the  individual  visions  of  St.  Francis  of  Assisi, 
the  Maid  of  Orleans,  St.  Theresa  (who  believed  that  she  had  seen 
Jesus  in  person  with  the  eyes  of  the  soul  more  distinctly  than 
she  could  have  seen  him  with  the  eyes  of  the  body),  Swedenborg, 
even  Mohammed,  and  the  collective  visions  of  the  Montanists 
in  Asia  Minor,  the  Camisards  in  France,  the  spectral  resurrec- 
tions of  the  martyred  Thomas  a Becket  of  Canterbury  and  Savo- 
narola of  Florence  in  the  excited  imagination  of  their  admirers, 
and  the  apparitions  of  the  Immaculate  Virgin  at  Lourdes.1 


emphasizes,  in  the  genuine  style  of  a French  novelist,  the  part  of  the  Magda- 
lene. “ La  gloire  de  la  resurrection  (he  says,  p.  13)  appartient  a Marie  de 
Mag  data.  Api'es  Jesus,  c'est  Marie  qui  a le  plus  fait  pour  la  fondation  du  chris - 
tianisme.  L' ombre  creee  par  les  sens  delicate  de  Madeleine  plane  encore  sur  le 
monde  . ...  Sa  grande  affirmation  de  femme : 'll  est  resuscite  ! ’ a ete  la  base 
de  la  foi  de  Vhumanite .”  The  vision-theory  has  also  been  adopted  and  de- 
fended by  Zeller,  Holsten  (in  an  able  treatise  on  the  Gospel  of  Paul  and 
Pete?\  18G8),  Lang,  Volkmar,  Reville,  Scholten,  Meijboom,  Kuenen,  Hooykaas. 
Comp.  Keim,  III.  579  sqq.  Among  English  writers  the  anonymous  author  of 
Supernatural  Religion  is  its  chief  champion,  and  states  it  in  these  words  (vol. 
III.  526,  Lond.  ed.  of  1879) : “ The  explanation  which  we  offer,  and  which 
has  long  been  adopted  in  various  forms  by  able  critics  ” [among  whom,  in  a 
foot-note,  he  falsely  quotes  Ewald]  “ is,  that  doubtless  Jesus  was  seen  (ticpfrr]), 
but  the  vision  was  not  real  and  objective,  but  illusory  and  subjective ; that  is 
to  say,  Jesus  was  not  himself  seen,  but  only  a representation  of  Jesus  within 
the  minds  of  the  beholders.” 

On  the  other  hand  Ewald,  Schenkel,  Alex.  Schweizer,  and  Keim  have  essen- 
tially modified  the  theory  by  giving  the  resurrection -visions  an  objective  charac- 
ter and  representing  them  as  real  though  purely  spiritual  manifestations  of  the 
exalted  Christ  from  heaven.  Hase  calls  this  view  happily  a Verhimmelung 
der  Visionshypothese  ( Gesch . Jesu,  p.  597).  It  is  certainly  a great  improve- 
ment and  a more  than  half-way  approach  to  the  truth,  but  it  breaks  on  the  rock 
of  the  empty  sepulchre.  It  does  not  and  cannot  tell  us  what  became  of  the 
body  of  Christ. 

1 The  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  (III.  530),  calls  to  aid  even  Luther’s 
vision  of  the  devil  on  the  Wartburg,  and  especially  the  apparition  of  Lord 
Byron  after  his  death  to  Sir  Walter  Scott  in  clear  moonshine  ; and  he  fancies 
that  in  the  first  century  it  would  have  been  mistaken  for  reality. 


§ 19.  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST. 


181 


Nobody  will  deny  that  subjective  fancies  and  impressions  are 
often  mistaken  for  objective  realities.  But,  with  the  exception 
of  the  case  of  St.  Paul — which  we  shall  consider  in  its  proper 
place,  and  which  turns  out  to  be,  even  according  to  the  admis- 
sion of  the  leaders  of  skeptical  criticism,  a powerful  argument 
against  the  mythical  or  visionary  theory — these  supposed  analo- 
gies are  entirely  irrelevant ; for,  not  to  speak  of  other  differ- 
ences, they  were  isolated  and  passing  phenomena  which  left  no 
mark  on  history ; while  the  faith  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ 
has  revolutionized  the  whole  world.  It  must  therefore  be 
treated  on  its  own  merits  as  an  altogether  unique  case. 

(a)  The  first  insuperable  argument  against  the  visionary  na- 
ture, and  in  favor  of  the  objective  reality,  of  the  resurrection  is 
the  empty  tomb  of  Christ.  If  he  did  not  rise,  his  body  must 
either  have  been  removed,  or  remained  in  the  tomb.  If  removed 
by  the  disciples,  they  were  guilty  of  a deliberate  falsehood  in 
preaching  the  resurrection,  and  then  the  vision -hypothesis  gives 
way  to  the  exploded  theory  of  fraud.  If  removed  by  the  ene- 
mies, then  these  enemies  had  the  best  evidence  against  the 
resurrection,  and  would  not  have  failed  to  produce  it  and  thus 
to  expose  the  baselessness  of  the  vision.  The  same  is  true,  of 
course,  if  the  body  had  remained  in  the  tomb.  The  murderers 
of  Christ  would  certainly  not  have  missed  such  an  opportunity 
to  destroy  the  very  foundation  of  the  hated  sect. 

To  escape  this  difficulty,  Strauss  removes  the  origin  of  the 
illusion  away  off  to  Galilee,  whither  the  disciples  fled ; but  this 
does  not  help  the  matter,  for  they  returned  in  a few  weeks  to 
Jerusalem,  where  we  find  them  all  assembled  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost. 

This  argument  is  fatal  even  to  the  highest  form  of  the  vision 
hypothesis,  which  admits  a spiritual  manifestation  of  Christ 
from  heaven,  but  denies  the  resurrection  of  his  body. 

(b)  If  Christ  did  not  really  rise,  then  the  words  which  he 
spoke  to  Mary  Magdalene,  to  the  disciples  of  Emmaus,  to  doubt- 
ing Thomas,  to  Peter  on  the  lake  of  Tiberias,  to  all  the  disci- 
ples on  Mount  Olivet,  were  likewise  pious  fictions.  But  who 


182 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


can  believe  that  words  of  such  dignity  and  majesty,  so  befitting 
the  solemn  moment  of  the  departure  to  the  throne  of  glory,  as 
the  commandment  to  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature,  to 
baptize  the  nations  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  the  promise  to  be  with  his  disciples  alway  to 
the  end  of  the  world — a promise  abundantly  verified  in  the  daily 
experience  of  the  church — could  proceed  from  dreamy  and  self- 
deluded  enthusiasts  or  crazy  fanatics  any  more  than  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  or  the  Sacerdotal  Prayer ! And  who,  with  any 
spark  of  historical  sense,  can  suppose  that  Jesus  never  instituted 
baptism,  which  has  been  performed  in  his  name  ever  since  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  and  which,  like  the  celebration  of  the  Lord’s 
Supper,  bears  testimony  to  him  every  day  as  the  sunlight  does 
to  the  sun ! 

(c)  If  the  visions  of  the  resurrection  were  the  product  of  an 
excited  imagination,  it  is  unaccountable  that  they  should  sud- 
denly have  ceased  on  the  fortieth  day  (Acts  1:15),  and  not 
have  occurred  to  any  of  the  disciples  afterwards,  with  the  single 
exception  of  Paul,  who  expressly  represents  his  vision  of  Christ 
as  “ the  last.”  Even  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  Christ  did  not 
appear  to  them,  but,  according  to  his  promise,  “ the  other  Para- 
clete ” descended  upon  them ; and  Stephen  saw  Christ  in  heaven, 
not  on  earth.1 

(d)  The  chief  objection  to  the  vision-hypothesis  is  its  intrinsic 
impossibility.  It  makes  the  most  exorbitant  claim  upon  our 
credulity.  It  requires  us  to  believe  that  many  persons,  singly 
and  collectively,  at  different  times,  and  in  different  places,  from 
Jerusalem  to  Damascus,  had  the  same  vision  and  dreamed  the 
same  dream  ; that  the  women  at  the  open  sepulchre  early  in  the 
morning,  Peter  and  John  soon  afterwards,  the  two  disciples 
journeying  to  Emmaus  on  the  afternoon  of  the  resurrection  day, 

1 It  is  utterly  baseless  when  Ewald  and  Renan  extend  these  visions  of  Christ 
for  months  and  years.  “ Ces  grands  reves  melancoliques ,”  says  Renan  (Les 
Apotres,  34,  36),  “ces  entretiens  sans  cesse  interrompus  et  recommences  avec  te 
mort  cTieri  remplissaient  les  jours  et  ies  mots  ....  Pres  d'un  an  s'ecoula  dans 
cette  vie  suspendue  entre  le  del  et  la  terre.  Le  charme , loin  de  decroitre , aug 
mentait ,”  etc.  Even  Keim,  III.  598,  protests  against  this  view. 


§ 19.  TIIE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST.  183 

the  assembled  apostles  on  the  evening  in  the  absence  of  Thomas, 
and  again  on  the  next  Lord’s  Day  in  the  presence  of  the  skepti- 
cal Thomas,  seven  apostles  at  the  lake  of  Tiberias,  on  one  occa- 
sion five  hundred  brethren  at  once  most  of  whom  were  still 
alive  when  Paul  reported  the  fact,  then  James,  the  brother  of 
the  Lord,  who  formerly  did  not  believe  in  him,  again  all  the 
apostles  on  Mount  Olivet  at  the  ascension,  and  at  last  the  clear- 
headed, strong-minded  persecutor  on  the  way  to  Damascus — 
that  all  these  men  and  women  on  these  different  occasions  vainly 
imagined  they  saw  and  heard  the  self-same  Jesus  in  bodily  shape 
and  form ; and  that  they  were  by  this  baseless  vision  raised  all 
at  once  from  the  deepest  gloom  in  which  the  crucifixion  of  their 
Lord  had  left  them,  to  the  boldest  faith  and  strongest  hope 
which  impelled  them  to  proclaim  the  gospel  of  the  resurrection 
from  Jerusalem  to  Pome  to  the  end  of  their  lives ! And  this 
illusion  of  the  early  disciples  created  the  greatest  revolution  not 
only  in  their  own  views  and  conduct,  but  among  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles and  in  the  subsequent  history  of  mankind ! This  illusion, 
we  are  expected  to  believe  by  these  unbelievers,  gave  birth  to 
the  most  real  and  most  mighty  of  all  facts,  the  Christian  Church 
which  has  lasted  these  eighteen  hundred  years  and  is  now 
spread  all  over  the  civilized  world,  embracing  more  members 
than  ever  and  exercising  more  moral  power  than  all  the  king- 
doms and  all  other  religions  combined ! 

The  vision-hypothesis,  instead  of  getting  rid  of  the  miracle, 
only  shifts  it  from  fact  to  fiction ; it  makes  an  empty  delusion 
more  powerful  than  the  truth,  or  turns  all  history  itself  at  last 
into  a delusion.  Before  we  can  reason  the  resurrection  of  Christ 
out  of  history  we  must  reason  the  apostles  and  Christianity  itself 
out  of  existence.  We  must  either  admit  the  miracle,  or  frankly 
confess  that  we  stand  here  before  an  inexplicable  mystery. 

Remarkable  Concessions. — The  ablest  advocates  of  the  vision-theory 
are  driven  against  their  wish  and  will  to  admit  some  unexplained  objec- 
ive  reality  in  the  visions  of  the  risen  or  ascended  Christ. 

Dr.  Baub,  of  Tubingen  (d.  1860),  the  master-critic  among  sceptical 
church  historians,  and  the  corypheus  of  the  Tubingen  school,  came  at 


184 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


last  to  the  conclusion  (as  stated  in  the  revised  edition  of  his  Church  His- 
tory of  the  First  Three  Centuries,  published  shortly  before  his  death, 
1860)  that  “ nothing  but  the  miracle  of  the  resurrection  could  disperse 
the  doubts  which  threatened  to  drive  faith  itself  into  the  eternal  night  of 
death  (Nur  das  Wunder  der  Aiferstehiing  konnte  die  Zweifel  zei'streuen, 
welche  den  Glauben  selbst  in  die  ewige  Nacht  des  Todes  vei'stossen  zu  miissen 
schienen ).”  Geschichte  der  christlichen  Kirche , I.  39.  It  is  true  he  adds  that 
the  nature  of  the  resurrection  itself  lies  outside  of  historical  investiga- 
tion (“  Was  die  Auferslehung  an  sick  ist,  liegt  ausserhalb  des  Kreises  der 
geschiclitlichen  Untersuchung  ”),  but  also,  that  “ for  the  faith  of  the  disciples 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  became  the  most  solid  and  most  irrefutable  cer- 
tainty. In  this  faith  only  Christianity  gained  a firm  foothold  of  its  his- 
torical development.  (In  diesem  Glauben  hat  erst  das  Ghristenthum  den 
festen  Grund  seiner  geschiclitlichen  Entwicklung  gewonnen.)  What  history 
requires  as  the  necessary  prerequisite  of  all  that  follows  is  not  so  much 
the  fact  of  the  resurrection  itself  [ ? ] as  the  faith  in  that  fact.  In  what- 
ever light  we  may  consider  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  whether  as  an 
actual  objective  miracle  or  as  a subjective  psychological  one  (als  ein 
objectiv  geschehenes  Wunder , oder  als  ein  subjectiv  psychologisches ),  even 
granting  the  possibility  of  such  a miracle,  no  psychological  analysis  can 
penetrate  the  inner  spiritual  process  by  which  in  the  consciousness  of  the 
disciples  their  unbelief  at  the  death  of  Jesus  was  transformed  into  a be- 
lief of  his  resurrection  ....  We  must  rest  satisfied  with  this,  that  for 
them  the  resurrection  of  Christ  was  a fact  of  their  consciousness,  and  had 
for  them  all  the  reality  of  an  historical  event.”  (Ibid.,  pp.  39,  40.)  Baur’s 
remarkable  conclusion  concerning  the  conversion  of  St.  Paul  [ibid.,  pp. 
44,  45)  we  shall  consider  in  its  proper  place. 

Dr.  Ewald,  of  Gottingen  (d.  1874),  the  great  orientalist  and  historian 
of  Israel,  antagonistic  to  Baur,  his  equal  in  profound  scholarship  and 
bold,  independent,  often  arbitrary  criticism,  but  superior  in  religious 
sympathy  with  the  genius  of  the  Bible,  discusses  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  in  his  History  of  the  Apostolic  Age  ( Gesch . des  Volkes  Israel , vol.  VI. 
52  sqq.),  instead  of  his  Life  of  Christ , and  resolves  it  into  a purely  spirit- 
ual, though  long  continued  manifestation  from  heaven.  Nevertheless  he 
makes  the  strong  statement  (p.  69)  that  “ nothing  is  historically  more  cer- 
tain than  that  Christ  rose  from  the  dead  and  appeared  to  his  own,  and  that 
this  their  vision  was  the  beginning  of  their  new  higher  faith  and  of  all 
their  Christian  labors.”  “ Nichts  steht  geschichtlich  fester ,”  he  says,  “ als 
dass  Christus  aus  den  Todten  auferstanden  den  Se  ini  gen  w iedererscli icn  und 
dass  dieses  ihr  u'iedersehen  der  anfang  ihres  neuen  libhern  glaubens  und  alles 
Hires  christlichen  wirkens  selbst  war.  Es  ist  aber  ebenso  gewiss  dass  sie  ihn 
nicht  wie  einen  gewohnlichen  mensclien  oder  wie  einen  aus  dem  grabe  auf- 
steigenden  schatten  oder  gespenst  wie  die  sage  von  solchen  meldet , sondem 
wie  den  einzigen  Sohn  Gottes , wie  ein  durchaus  schon  ubermdclitiges  und 
ubermenschliches  wesen  wiedersahen  und  sich  bei  spateren  zuruckerinner- 


§ 19.  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST. 


185 


ungen  nick/s  anderes  denJcen  konnten  ah  dass  jeder  welcher  ihn  wieder - 
zusehen  gcwiirdigt  sei  auch  sogleich  unmittelbar  seine  einzige  gottliche  wurde 
erkannt  und  seitdem  fehenfest  daran  geglaubt  habe.  Ah  den  dchten  Kbnig 
und  Sol  in  Gottes  liatten  ihn  abei ' die  Zwolfe  und  andre  schon  im  leben  zu 
erkennen  gelernt : der  unterschied  ist  nur  der  dass  sie  ihn  jetzt  auch  nach 
seiner  rein  gbttlichen  seite  und  damit  auch  ah  den  uber  den  tod  siegreichen 
erkannt  zu  haben  sich  erinnerten.  Zwischen  jenem  gemeinen  schauen  des 
irdischen  CliHstus  wie  er  ihnen  sowohl  bekannt  war  und  diesem  hbhei'n  tief- 
eri'egten  entz  tick  ten  schauen  des  himmlischen  ist  aho  doch  ein  inner  er  zusam- 
menliang , so  dass  sie  ihn  auch  jezt  in  diesen  et'sten  tagen  und  wochen  nach 
seinem  tode  nie  ah  den  himmlischen  Messias  geschauet  hdtten  wenn  sie  ihn 
nicht  schon  vorliet'  ah  den  irdischen  so  wohl  gekannt  hdtten .” 

Dr.  Keim,  of  Zurich  (d.  at  Giessen,  1879),  an  independent  pupil  of 
Baur,  and  author  of  the  most  elaborate  and  valuable  Life  of  Christ  which 
the  liberal  critical  school  has  produced,  after  giving  every  possible  advan- 
tage to  the  mythical  view  of  the  resurrection,  confesses  that  it  is,  after 
all,  a mere  hypothesis  and  fails  to  explain  the  main  point.  He  says 
( Geschichte  Jesu  von  Nazara , III.  600) : “ Nach  alien  diesen  Uebei'legungen 
wird  man  zugestehen  miissen,  dass  auch  die  neuetxlings  beliebt  gewoi'dene 
Theoi'ie  nur  eine  Hypothese  ist,  welche  Einiges  erkldrt,  die  Hauptsache  nicht 
erkldrt , ja  im  Ganzen  und  Grossen  das  geschichtlich  Bezeugte  schiefen  und 
liinfdlligen  Gesiclitspunkten  unterstellt.  Misslmgt  aber  gleichmdssig  der 
Versuch,  die  ubei'liefei'te  Auferstehungsgeschichte  festzuhalten,  wie  das  Unter - 
nehmen , mit  Hilfe  der  paulinischen  Visionen  eine  naturliclie  Erklarung  des 
Gescliehenen  aufzubauen,  so  bleibt  fur  die  Geschichte  zundchst  kein  Weg 
ubrig  ah  dei'  des  Eingestdndnisses,  dass  die  Sagenhaftigkeit  der  redseligen 
Geschichte  und  die  dunkle  Kiirze  dei'  glaubwiir digen  Geschichte  es  nicht 
gestattet , iibei'  die  rdthselhaften  Ausgdnge  des  Lebens  Jesu,  so  wichtig  sie 
an  und  fur  sich  und  in  der  Einwirkung  auf  die  Weltgeschichte  gewesen 
sind,  ein  sicheres  unumstdssliches  Residtat  zu  geben.  Fur  die  Geschichte , 
sofem  sie  nur  mit  benannten  evidenten  Zahlen  und  mit  Reihen  greif  barer 
anerkannter  Ursaclien  und  Wirkungen  rechnet , existirt  als  das  Thatsdch - 
liche  und  Zweifellose  lediglich  der  feste  Glaube  der  Apostel,  dass  Jesus  aufer - 
standen,  und  die  ungeheure  Wirkung  dieses  Glaubens , die  Christianisirung 
der  Menschheit .”  On  p.  601  he  expresses  the  conviction  that  “it  was 
the  crucified  and  living  Christ  who,  not  as  the  risen  one,  but  rather  as 
the  divinely  glorified  one  (als  der  wenn  nicht  Aufei'standene,  so  doch 
vielmehr  himmlisch  V erherrlichte ),  gave  visions  to  his  disciples  and  re- 
vealed himself  to  his  society.”  In  his  last  word  on  the  great  problem, 
Keim,  in  view  of  the  exhaustion  and  failure  of  the  natural  explanations, 
comes  to  the  conclusion,  that  we  must  either,  with  Dr.  Baur,  humbly 
confess  our  ignorance,  or  return  to  the  faith  of  the  apostles  who  “have 
seen  the  Lord”  (John  20:25).  See  the  third  and  last  edition  of  his 
abridged  Geschichte  Jesu,  Zurich,  1875,  p.  362. 

Dr.  Schenkel,  of  Heidelberg,  who  in  his  Charakterbild  Jesu  (third  ed. 


186 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


1864,  pp.  231  sqq.)  had  adopted  the  vision-theory  in  its  higher  form  as 
a purely  spiritual,  though  real  manifestation  from  heaven,  confesses  in 
his  latest  work,  Das  Christusbild  der  Apostel  (1879,  p.  18),  his  inability 
to  solve  the  problem  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  says : “ Niemals 
wird  es  der  Forschung  gelingen , das  Rdthsel  des  Auferstehungsglaubens  zu 
ei'grunden.  Nickts  aber  steht  fester  in  der  Geschichte  als  die  Thatsache 
dieses  Glaubens,*  auf  Him  beruht  die  Stiftung  der  ckristlichen  Gemein - 
schaft  . . . Der  Visionshypothese , welche  die  Christuserscheinungen  der 
Jiinger  aus  Sinnestduschungen  erklaren  willy  die  in  einer  Steiger ung  des 
*Gemuths-  und  Nervenlebens  ’ ihre  physische  und  darurn  auch  psychische 
Ursache  batten,  ....  steht  vor  allem  die  Grundfarbe  der  Stimmung  in  den 
Jungem , namentlich  in  Petrus , im  Wege : die  tiefe  Trailer,  das  gesunkene 
Selbstvertrauen,  die  nagende  Gewissenspein,  der  verlome  Lebensmuth.  Wie 
soil  aus  einer  solchen  Stimmung  das  verkldrte  Bild  des  Auferstandenen 
hervorgehen,  mit  dieser  unverwustlichen  Sicherheit  und  unzerstorbaren  Freu - 
digkeit,  durch  welche  der  Auferstehungsglaube  die  Christengemeinde  in  alien 
Sturmen  und  Verfolgungen  auf  rechi  zu  ei'haUen  vermochte?” 


§ 20.  APOSTOLIC  AGE — SOURCES  AND  LITERATURE.  187 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE. 

§ 20.  Sources  a/nd  Literature  of  the  Apostolic  Age . 

I.  Sources. 

1.  The  Canonical  Books  of  the  New  Testament. — The  twenty-seven 
books  of  the  New  Testament  are  better  supported  than  any  ancient  clas- 
sic, both  by  a chain  of  external  testimonies  which  reaches  up  almost  to 
the  close  of  the  apostolic  age,  and  by  the  internal  evidence  of  a spiritual 
depth  and  unction  which  raises  them  far  above  the  best  productions  of 
the  second  century.  The  church  has  undoubtedly  been  guided  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  the  selection  and  final  determination  of  the  Christian 
canon.  But  this  does,  of  course,  not  supersede  the  necessity  of  criticism, 
nor  is  the  evidence  equally  strong  in  the  case  of  the  seven  Eusebian 
Antilegomena.  The  Tubingen  and  Leyden  schools  recognized  at  first 
only  five  books  of  the  New  Testament  as  authentic,  namely,  four  Epistles 
of  Paul — Romans,  First  and  Second  Corinthians,  and  Galatians — and  the 
Revelation  of  John.  But  the  progress  of  research  leads  more  and  more 
to  positive  results,  and  nearly  all  the  Epistles  of  Paul  now  find  advocates 
among  liberal  critics.  (Hilgenfeld  and  Lipsius  admit  seven,  adding  First 
Thessalonians,  Philippians,  and  Philemon ; Renan  concedes  also  Second 
Thessalonians,  and  Colossians  to  be  Pauline,  thus  swelling  the  number  of 
genuine  Epistles  to  nine.)  The  chief  facts  and  doctrines  of  apostolic 
Christianity  are  sufficiently  guaranteed  even  by  those  five  documents, 
which  are  admitted  by  the  extreme  left  of  modern  criticism. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  give  us  the  external,  the  Epistles  the  in- 
ternal history  of  primitive  Christianity.  They  are  independent  contem- 
poraneous compositions  and  never  refer  to  each  other ; probably  Luke 
never  read  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  and  Paul  never  read  the  Acts  of  Luke, 
although  he  no  doubt  supplied  much  valuable  information  to  Luke.  But 
indirectly  they  illustrate  and  confirm  each  other  by  a number  of  coinci- 
dences which  have  great  evidential  value,  all  the  more  as  these  coinci- 
dences are  undesigned  and  incidental.  Had  they  been  composed  by 
post-apostolio  writers,  the  agreement  would  have  been  more  complete. 


188 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


minor  disagreements  would  have  been  avoided,  and  the  lacunre  in  the 
Acts  supplied,  especially  in  regard  to  the  closing  labors  and  death  of 
Peter  and  Paul. 

The  Acts  bear  on  the  face  all  the  marks  of  an  original,  fresh,  and 
trustworthy  narrative  of  contemporaneous  events  derived  from  the  best 
sources  of  information,  and  in  great  part  from  personal  observation  and 
experience.  The  authorship  of  Luke,  the  companion  of  Paul,  is  con- 
ceded by  a majority  of  the  best  modern  scholars,  even  by  Ewald.  And 
this  fact  alone  establishes  the  credibility.  Renan  (in  his  St.  Paul , ch. 
1)  admirably  calls  the  Acts  “ a book  of  joy,  of  serene  ardor.  Since  the 
Homeric  poems  no  book  has  been  seen  full  of  such  fresh  sensations.  A 
breeze  of  morning,  an  odor  of  the  sea,  if  I dare  express  it  so,  inspiring 
something  joyful  and  strong,  penetrates  the  whole  book,  and  makes  it  an 
excellent  compagnon  de  voyage , the  exquisite  breviary  for  him  who  is 
searching  for  ancient  remains  on  the  seas  of  the  south.  This  is  the 
second  idyl  of  Christianity.  The  Lake  of  Tiberias  and  its  fishing  barks 
had  furnished  the  first.  Now,  a more  powerful  breeze,  aspirations  to- 
ward more  distant  lands,  draw  us  out  into  the  open  sea.” 

2.  The  post- Apostolic  and  Patristic  writings  are  full  of  reminiscences 
of,  and  references  to,  the  apostolic  books,  and  as  dependent  on  them  as 
the  river  is  upon  its  fountain. 

3.  The  Apocryphal  and  Heretical  literature.  The  numerous  Apocry- 
phal Acts , Epistles , and  Apocalypses  were  prompted  by  the  same  motives 
of  curiosity  and  dogmatic  interest  as  the  Apocryphal  Gospels,  and  have 
a similar  apologetic,  though  very  little  historical,  value.  The  heretical 
character  is,  however,  more  strongly  marked.  They  have  not  yet  been 
sufficiently  investigated.  Lipsius  (in  Smith  and  W ace’s  “Diet,  of  Christ. 
Biog.”  vol.  I.  p.  27)  divides  the  Apocryphal  Acts  into  four  classes  : (1) 
Ebionitic  ; (2)  Gnostic ; (3)  originally  Catholic  ; (4)  Catholic  adaptations 
or  recensions  of  heretical  documents.  The  last  class  is  the  most  numer- 
ous, rarely  older  than  the  fifth  century,  but  mostly  resting  on  documents 
from  the  second  and  third  centuries. 

(a)  Apocryphal  Acts : Acta  Petri  et  Pauli  (of  Ebionite  origin,  but  re- 
cast), Acta  Pauli  et  Theclce  (mentioned  by  Tertullian  at  the  end  of  the 
second  century,  of  Gnostic  origin),  Acta  Thomce  (Gnostic),  Acta  Mat  than, 
Acta  Thaddaei,  Martyrium  Bartliolomcei , Acta  Baimabce , Acta  Andrecp , 
Acta  Andrece  et  Matthice , Acta  Philippi,  Acta  Johannis , Acta  Simonis  et 
Judce,  Acta  Thaddaei,  The  Doctrine  of  Addai,  the  Apostle  (ed.  in  Synac  and 
English  by  Dr.  G.  Phillips,  London,  1876). 

(b)  Apocryphal  Epistles  : the  correspondence  between  P aid  and  Seneca 
(six  by  Paul  and  eight  by  Seneca,  mentioned  by  Jerome  and  Augustine), 
the  third  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  Epistolae  Marice,  Epistolce 
Petri  ad  Jacobum. 

(c)  Apocryphal  Apocalypses  : Apocalypsis  Johannis,  Apocalypsis  Petri, 
Apocalypsis  Pauli  (or  dvafiariKov  IlavXov,  based  on  the  report  of  his  rap- 


§ 20.  APOSTOLIC  AGE — SOURCES  AND  LITERATURE.  189 


ture  into  Paradise,  2 Cor.  12  : 2-4),  Apocalypsis  TJu/mce , Apoc.  Stepliani, 
Apoc.  Marice,  Apoc.  Mosis , Apoc.  Esdrce. 

Editions  and  Collections : 

Fabbicius  : Codex  Apocrypha, & Novi  Testamenti.  Hamburg,  1703,  2d 
ed.  1719,  1743,  3 parts  in  2 vols.  (vol.  H.) 

Grabe  : Spicilegium  Patrurn  et  Hcereticorum.  Oxford,  1698,  ed.  H.  1714. 

Birch  : Auctarium  Cod.  Apoc.  N.  Ti  Fabrician.  Copenh.  1804  (Fasc. 
I.).  Contains  the  pseudo- Apocalypse  of  John. 

Thilo:  Acta  Apost.  Petri  et  Pauli.  Halis,  1838.  ActaThomce.  Lips.  1823. 

Tischendorf:  Acta  Apostolorum  Apocrypha.  Lips.  1851. 

Tischendorf  : Apocalypses  Apocrypha*  Mosis,  Esdrce , Pauli , Joannis , 
item  Maria*  Dormitio.  Lips.  1866. 

R.  A.  Lipsius  : Die  apokryph.  Aposiel  geschichten  und  Apostel  legenden. 
Leipz.  1883  sq.  2 vols. 

4.  Jewish  sources  : Philo  and  Josephus,  see  $ 14,  p.  92.  Josephus  is 
all-important  for  the  history  of  the  Jewish  war  and  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  a.d.  70,  which  marks  the  complete  rupture  of  the  Christian 
Church  with  the  Jewish  synagogue  and  temple.  The  apocryphal  Jewish, 
and  the  Talmudic  literature  supplies  information  and  illustrations  of  the 
training  of  the  Apostles  and  the  form  of  their  teaching,  and  the  discipline 
and  worship  of  the  primitive  church.  Lightfoot,  Schottgen,  Castelli, 
Delitzsch,  Wimsche,  Siegfried,  Schiirer,  and  a few  others  have  made  those 
sources  available  for  the  exegete  and  historian.  Comp,  here  also  the 
Jewish  works  of  Jost,  Graetz,  and  Geiger,  mentioned  $ 9,  p.  61,  and 
Hamburger’s  Real-Encyclopddie  des  Judenthums  (fur  Bibel  und  Talmud ), 
in  course  of  publication. 

5.  Heathen  writers:  Tacitus,  Pliny,  Suetonius,  Lucian,  Celsus, 
Porphyry,  Julian.  They  furnish  only  fragmentary,  mostly  incidental, 
distorted  and  hostile  information,  but  of  considerable  apologetic  value. 

Comp.  Nath.  Lardner  (d.  1768)  : Collection  of  Ancient  Jewish  and 
Heathen  Testimonies  to  the  Truth  of  the  Christian  Religion.  Originally 
published  in  4 vols.  Lond.  1764-’67,  and  then  in  the  several  editions  of 
his  Works  (vol.  VI.  365-649,  ed.  Kippis). 


II.  Histories  of  the  Apostolic  Age. 

William  Cave  (Anglican,  d.  1713)  : Lives  of  the  Apostles , and  the  two 
Evangelists , St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke.  Lond.  1675,  new  ed.  revised  by 
H.  Cary,  Oxford,  1840  (reprinted  in  New  York,  1857).  Comp,  also 
Cave’s  Primitive  Christianity , 4th  ed.  Lond.  1862. 

Joh.  Fr.  Buddeus  (Luth.,  d.  at  Jena,  1729)  : Ecclesia  Apostolica.  Jen. 
1729. 

George  Benson  (d.  1763)  : Histoiy  of  the  First  Planting  of  the  Chi'istian 


190 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Religion . Lond.  1756,  3 vols.  4to  (in  German  by  Bamberger , Halle, 
1768). 

J.  J.  Hess  (d.  at  Zurich,  1828)  : Geschichte  der  Apostel  Jesu.  Ziir.  1788  ; 
4th  ed.  1820. 

Gottl.  Jac.  PiiANCK  (d.  in  Gottingen,  1833) : Geschichte  des  Christen - 
thums  in  der  Periode  seiner  Einfuhrung  in  die  Welt  durch  Jesum  und 
die  Apostel  Gottingen,  1818,  2 vols. 

*Aug.  Neander  (d.  in  Berlin,  1850) : Geschichte  der  PJlanzung  und  Lei - 
tung  der  christlichen  Kirche  durch  die  Apostel  Hamb.  1832.  2 vols.; 
4th  ed.  revised  1847.  The  same  in  English  (. History  of  the  Planting 
and  Training  of  the  Christ.  Church ),  by  J.  E.  Ryland , Edinb.  1842, 
and  in  Bohn’s  Standard  Library,  Lond.  1851 ; reprinted  in  Philad. 
1844 ; revised  by  E.  G.  Robinson,  N.  York,  1865.  This  book  marks 
an  epoch  and  is  still  valuable. 

F.  C.  Albert  Schwegler  (d.  at  Tubingen,  1857) : Das  nachapostolische 
Zeitalter  in  den  Hauptmomenten  seiner  Entwicklung.  Tubingen,  1845, 
1846,  2 vols.  An  ultra-critical  attempt  to  transpose  the  apostolic 
literature  (with  the  exception  of  five  books)  into  the  post-apostolic 
age. 

*Ferd.  Christ.  Baur  (d.  1860) : Das  Christenthum  und  die  christliche 
Kirche  der  drei  ersten  Jahrhunderte.  Tubingen,  1853,  2d  revised  ed. 
1860  (536  pp.).  The  third  edition  is  a mere  reprint  or  title  edition 
of  the  second  and  forms  the  first  volume  of  his  General  Church  His- 
tory, edited  by  his  son,  in  5 vols.  1863.  It  is  the  last  and  ablest 
exposition  of  the  Tubingen  reconstruction  of  the  apostolic  history 
from  the  pen  of  the  master  of  that  school.  See  vol.  I.  pp.  1-174. 
English  translation  by  Allen  Menzies,  in  2 vols.  Lond.  1878  and 
1879.  Comp,  also  Baur’s  Paul , second  ed.  by  Ed.  Zeller,  1866  and 
1867,  and  translated  by  A.  Menzies , 2 vols.  1873,  1875.  Baur’s  critical 
researches  have  compelled  a thorough  revision  of  the  traditional 
views  on  the  apostolic  age,  and  have  so  far  been  very  useful,  not- 
withstanding their  fundamental  errors. 

A.  P.  Stanley  (Dean  of  Westminster)  : Sei'mons  and  Essays  on  the  Apos- 
tolic Age.  Oxford,  1847.  3d  ed.  1874. 

♦Heinrich  W.  J.  Thiersch  (Irvingite,  died  1885  in  Basle) : Die  Kirche 
im  apostolischen  Zeitalter.  Francf.  a.  M.  1852;  3d  ed.  Augsburg, 
1879,  “improved,”  but  very  slightly.  (The  same  in  English  from 
the  first  ed.  by  Th.  Carlyle.  Lond.  1852.) 

*J.  P.  Lange  (d.  1884) : Das  apostolische  Zeitalter.  Braunscliw.  1854.  2 vols. 

♦Philip  Schaff  : Histoiy  of  the  Apostolic  Church , first  in  German,  Mer- 
cersburg,  Penns.  1851 ; 2d  ed.  enlarged,  Leipzig,  1854 ; English 
translation  by  Dr.  E.  D.  Yeomans,  N.  York,  1853,  in  1 vol. ; Edinb. 
1854,  in  2 vols.  ; several  editions  without  change.  (Dutch  translation 
from  the  second  Germ.  ed.  by  J.  W.  Th.  Lublink  Weddik,  Tiel,  1857.) 

*G.  Y.  Leohler  (Prof,  in  Leipzig) : Das  apostolische  und  das  nacha * 


20.  ATOSTOLIC  AO E — SOURCES  AND  LITERATURE.  191 


postolische  Zeitalter.  2d  ed.  1857 ; 3d  ed.  thoroughly  revised,  Leip- 
zig, 1885.  Engl.  trsl.  by  Miss  Davidson , Edinb.  1887.  Conservative. 

* Albrecht  Ritschij  (d.  in  Gottingen,  1889) : Die  Entstehung  der  altkatho- 
lischen  Kirche.  2d  ed.  Bonn,  1857.  The  first  edition  was  in  har- 
mony with  the  Tubingen  School ; but  the  second  is  materially  im- 
proved, and  laid  the  foundation  for  the  Ritsclil  School. 

*Heinrich  Ewald  (d.  at  Gottingen,  1874) : Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel , 
vols.  VI.  and  VII.  2d  ed.  Gottingen,  1858  and  1859.  Vol.  VT.  of 
this  great  work  contains  the  History  of  the  Apostolic  Age  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem ; vol.  VTI.  the  History  of  the  post-Apos- 
tolic  Age  to  the  reign  of  Hadrian.  English  translation  of  the  History 
of  Israel  by  R.  Martineau  and  J.  E.  Carpenter.  Lond.  1869  sqq. 
A trans.  of  vols.  VI.  and  VII.  is  not  intended.  Ewald  (the  “ Urvo- 
gel  von  Gottingen  ”)  pursued  an  independent  path  in  opposition  both 
to  the  traditional  orthodoxy  and  to  the  Tubingen  school,  which  he 
denounced  as  worse  than  heathenish.  See  Preface  to  vol.  VTI. 

*E.  de  Pressense  : Histoire  des  trois  premiers  siecles  de  Veglise  chretienne. 
Par.  1858  sqq.  4 vols.  German  translation  by  E.  FabaHus  (Leipz. 
1862-65)  ; English  translation  by  Annie  Harwood- Holmden  (Lond. 
and  N.  York,  1870,  new  ed.  Lond.  1879).  The  first  volume  contains 
the  first  century  under  the  title  Le  siecle  apostolique  ; rev.  ed.  1887. 

*Joh.  Jos.  Ign.  von  Dollinger  (Rom.  Cath.,  since  1870  Old  Cath.)  : Chris - 
tenthum  und  Kirche  in  der  Zeit  der  Griindung.  Regensburg,  1860. 
2d  ed.  1868.  The  same  translated  into  English  by  H.  N.  Oxenham. 
London,  1867. 

C.  S.  Vaughan  : The  Church  of  the  First  Days.  Lond.  1864-’65.  3 vols. 
Lectures  on  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

J.  N.  Sepp  (Rom.  Cath.)  : Geschichte  der  Apostel  Jesu  bis  zur  Zerstorung 
Jerusalems.  Schaffhausen,  1866. 

C.  Holsten  : Zum  Evangelium  des  Paulus  und  des  Petrus.  Rostock, 
1868  (447  pp.). 

Paul  Wilh.  Schmidt  und  Franz  v.  Holtzendorf:  Protestanten-Bibel 
Neuen  Testaments.  Zweite,  revid.  Auflage.  Leipzig,  1874.  A popu- 
lar exegetical  summary  of  the  Tubingen  views  with  contributions 
from  Bruch,  Hilgenfeld,  Holsten,  Lipsius,  Pfleederer  and  others. 

A.  B.  Bruce  (Professor  in  Glasgow)  : The  Training  of  the  Twelve.  Edin- 
burgh, 1871,  second  ed.  1877. 

*Ebnest  Renan  (de  l’Academie  Francaise) : Histoire  des  origines  du  Chris- 
tianisme.  Paris,  1863  sqq.  The  first  volume  is  Vie  de  Jesus,  1863, 
noticed  in  § 14  (pp.  97  and  98) ; then  followed  II.  Les  Apotres,  1866 ; 
HI.  St.  Paul,  1869 ; IV.  L'  Antechrist,  1873  ; V.  Les  Evangiles,  1877  ; 
VT.  L'figlise  Chretienne,  1879;  Vll.  and  last  volume,  Marc-Aurele , 
1882.  The  II.,  HI.,  TV.,  and  V.  volumes  belong  to  the  Apostolic 
age ; the  last  two  to  the  next.  The  work  of  a sceptical  outsider, 
of  brilliant  genius,  eloquence,  and  secular  learning.  It  increases 


192 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


in  value  as  it  advances.  The  Life  of  Jesus  is  the  most  interesting 
and  popular,  but  also  by  far  the  most  objectionable  volume,  because 
it  deals  almost  profanely  with  the  most  sacred  theme. 

Emile  Ferriere  : Les  Apotres.  Paris,  1875. 

Supernatural  Religion.  An  Inquiry  into  the  Reality  of  Divine  Revela- 
tion. Lond.  1873,  (seventh)  “complete  ed.,  carefully  revised,”  1879, 
3 vols.  This  anonymous  work  is  an  English  reproduction  and  reposi- 
tory of  the  critical  speculations  of  the  Tubingen  School  of  Baur, 
Strauss,  Zeller,  Scliwegler,  Hilgenfeld,  Volkmar,  etc.  It  may  be 
called  an  enlargement  of  Schwegler’s  Nachapostolisches  Zeitaltei'.  The 
first  volume  is  mostly  taken  up  with  a philosophical  discussion  of 
the  question  of  miracles ; the  remainder  of  vol.  I.  (pp.  212-485) 
and  vol.  II.  contain  an  historical  inquiry  into  the  apostolic  origin  of 
the  canonical  Gospels,  with  a negative  result.  The  third  volume 
discusses  the  Acts,  the  Epistles  and  the  Apocalypse,  and  the  evidence 
for  the  Resurrection  and  Ascension,  which  are  resolved  into  hallu- 
cinations or  myths.  Starting  with  the  affirmation  of  the  antecedent 
incredibility  of  miracles,  the  author  arrives  at  the  conclusion  of  their 
impossibility ; and  this  philosophical  conclusion  determines  the  his- 
torical investigation  throughout.  Dr.  Schiirer,  in  the  “ Tlieol.  Litera- 
turzeitung  ” for  1879,  No.  26  (p.  622),  denies  to  this  work  scientific 
value  for  Germany,  but  gives  it  credit  for  extraordinary  familiarity 
with  recent  German  literature  and  great  industry  in  collecting  his- 
torical details.  Drs.  Lightfoot,  Sanday,  Ezra  Abbot,  and  others  have 
exposed  the  defects  of  its  scholarship,  and  the  false  premises  from 
which  the  writer  reasons.  The  rapid  sale  of  the  work  indicates  the 
extensive  spread  of  skepticism  and  the  necessity  of  fighting  over 
again,  on  Anglo-American  ground,  the  theological  battles  of  Ger- 
many and  Holland ; it  is  to  be  hoped  with  more  triumphant  success. 

*J.  B.  Lightfoot  (Bishop  of  Durham  since  1879)  : A series  of  elaborate 
articles  against  “ Supernatural  Religion ,”  in  the  “Contemporary  Re- 
view ” for  1875  to  1877.  They  should  be  republished  in  book  form. 
Comp,  also  the  reply  of  the  anonymous  author  in  the  lengthy  pre- 
face to  the  sixth  edition.  Lightfoot’s  Commentaries  on  Pauline 
Epistles  contain  valuable  Excursuses  on  several  historical  questions 
of  the  apostolic  age,  especially  St.  Paul  and  the  Three,  in  the  Com. 
on  the  Galatians,  pp.  283-355. 

W.  Sanday  : The  Gospels  in  the  Second  Century.  London,  1876.  This  is 
directed  against  the  critical  part  of  “ Supernatural  Religion.”  The 
eighth  chapter  on  Marcion’s  Gnostic  mutilation  and  reconstruc- 
tion of  St.  Luke’s  Gospel  (pp.  204  sqq.)  had  previously  appeared  in 
the  “ Fortnightly  Review  ” for  June,  1875,  and  finishes  on  English 
soil,  a controversy  which  had  previously  been  fought  out  on  German 
soil,  in  the  circle  of  the  Tubingen  School.  The  preposterous  hypo- 
thesis of  the  priority  of  Marcion’s  Gospel  was  advocated  by  Ritschl, 


§ 20.  APOSTOLIC  AGE — SOURCES  AND  LITERATURE.  193 


Baur  and  Scliwegler,  but  refuted  by  Volkmar  and  Hilgenfeld,  of  the 
same  school;  whereupon  Baur  and  Ritschl  honorably  abandoned 
their  error.  The  anonymous  author  of  “ Supernatural  Religion,”  in 
his  seventh  edition,  has  followed  their  example.  The  Germans  con- 
ducted the  controversy  chiefly  under  its  historic  and  dogmatic  as- 
pects ; San  day  has  added  the  philological  and  textual  argument  with 
the  aid  of  Holtzmann’s  analysis  of  the  style  and  vocabulary  of  Luke. 

A.  Hausrath  (Prof,  in  Heidelberg)  : Neutestamentliche  Zeitgeschichte. 
Heidelberg,  1873  sqq.  Parts  H.  and  IH.  (second  ed.  1875)  embrace 
the  apostolic  times,  Part  IV.  (1877)  the  post-apostolic  times.  Eng- 
lish translation  by  Pointing  and  Quenzer.  Lond.  1878  sqq.  H. 
belongs  to  the  School  oi  Tubingen. 

Ban.  Schenkel  (Prof,  in  Heidelberg) : Das  Christusbild  der  Apostel  und 
der  nachapostolischen  Zeit.  Leipz.  1879.  Comp,  the  review  by  H. 
Holtzmann  in  Hilgenfeld’s  “ Zeitschrift  fiir  wissensch.  Theol.”  1879, 
p.  392. 

H.  Oort  and  I.  Hooykaas  : The  Bible  far  Learners , translated  from  the 
Butch  by  Philip  H.  Wicksteed,  vol.  III.  (the  New  Test.,  by  Hooy- 
kaas), Book  H.  pp.  463-693  of  the  Boston  ed.  1879.  (In  the  Engl, 
ed.  it  is  vol.  VT.)  This  is  a popular  digest  of  the  rationalistic  Tubin- 
gen and  Leyden  criticism  under  the  inspiration  of  Dr.  A.  Kuenen , 
Professor  of  Theology  at  Leyden.  It  agrees  substantially  with  the 
Protestanten-Bibel  noticed  above. 

♦George  P.  Fisher  (Prof,  in  Yale  College,  New  Haven)  : The  Beginnings 
of  Christianity.  N.  York,  1877.  Comp,  also  the  author’s  former 
work  : Essays  on  the  Supeimatural  Origin  of  Christianity , with  special 
reference  to  the  Theories  of  Renan , Strauss , and  the  Tubingen  School. 
New  York,  1865.  New  ed.  enlarged,  1877. 

*C.  Weizsacker  (successor  of  Baur  in  Tubingen)  : Das  Apostolische  Zeit- 
alter.  Freiburg,  1886.  Critical  and  very  able. 

*0.  Pfletderer  (Prof,  in  Berlin)  : Das  Urchristenth um,  seine  Schriften 
und  Lehren . Berlin,  1887.  (Tubingen  School.) 


III.  The  Chronology  of  the  Apostolic  Age. 

Rudolph  Anger  : De  temporum  in  Actis  Apostolorum  ratione.  Lips.  1833 

(208  pp.). 

Henry  Browne  : Ordo  Sceclorum.  A Treatise  or€  the  Chronology  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  Lond.  1844.  Pp.  95-163. 

♦Karl  Wieseler  : Chronologie  des  apostolischen  Zeitalters.  Gottingen, 
1848  (606  pp.). 

The  older  and  special  works  are  noticed  in  Wieseler,  pp.  6-9. 
See  also  the  elaborate  Synopsis  of  the  dates  of  the  Apostolic  Age  in 


194 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Scliiiffer’s  translation  of  Lechler  on  Acts  (in  the  Am.  ed.  of  Lange’s 
Commentary)  ; Henry  B.  Smith’s  Chronological  Tables  of  Church  His- 
tory ( 1860);  and  Weingarten  : Zeittafeln  zur  K-Gesch.  3d  ed.  1888. 


§ 21.  General  Character  of  the  Ajpostolic  Age . 

“ Der  Schlachtruf,  der  St.  Pauli  Brnst  entsprungen, 

Rief  nicht  sein  Echo  auf  zu  taneend  Streiten  ? 

Und  welch’  ein  Friedensecho  hat  geklungen 
Durch  tausend  Herzen  von  Johannis  Saiten  ! 

Wie  viele  rasche  Feuer  sind  entglommen 
Als  Wiederschein  von  Petri  Funkenspruhen  ! 

Und  sieht  man  Andre  still  mit  Opfem  kommen, 

Ist’s,  weil  sie  in  Jakobi  Schul’  gediehen : — 

Ein  Satz  ist’s,  der  in  Yariationen 

Vom  ersten  Anfang  forttont  durch  iEonen.” 

(Tholuck.) 

Extent  and  Environment  of  the  Apostolic  Age. 

The  apostolic  period  extends  from  the  Day  of  Pentecost  to  the 
death  of  St.  John,  and  covers  about  seventy  years,  from  a.d.  30 
to  100.  The  field  of  action  is  Palestine,  and  gradually  extends 
over  Syria,  Asia  Minor,  Greece,  and  Italy.  The  most  promi- 
nent centres  are  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  and  Pome,  which  repre- 
sent respectively  the  mother  churches  of  Jewish,  Gentile,  and 
United  Catholic  Christianity.  Next  to  them  are  Ephesus  and 
Corinth.  Ephesus  acquired  a special  importance  by  the  resi- 
dence and  labors  of  John,  which  made  themselves  felt  during 
the  second  century  through  Polycarp  and  Irenseus.  Samaria, 
Damascus,  Joppa,  Caesarea,  Tyre,  Cyprus,  the  provinces  of  Asia 
Minor,  Troas,  Philippi,  Thessalonica,  Beroea,  Athens,  Crete, 
Patmos,  Malta,  Puteoli,  come  also  into  view  as  points  where 
the  Christian  faith  was  planted.  Through  the  eunuch  converted 
by  Philip,  it  reached  Candace,  the  queen  of  the  Ethiopians.1 
As  early  as  a.d.  58  Paul  could  say : “ From  Jerusalem  and  round 
about  even  unto  Illyricum,  I have  fully  preached  the  gospel  of 
Christ.” 3 He  afterwards  carried  it  to  Pome,  where  it  had  already 


1 Acte  8:  27. 


* Rom.  15  : 19. 


§ 21.  GENERAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE.  195 

been  known  before,  and  possibly  as  far  as  Spain,  the  western 
boundary  of  the  empire.1 

The  nationalities  reached  by  the  gospel  in  the  first  century 
were  the  Jews,  the  Greeks,  and  the  Romans,  and  the  languages 
used  were  the  Hebrew  or  Aramaic,  and  especially  the  Greek, 
which  was  at  that  time  the  organ  of  civilization  and  of  interna- 
tional intercourse  within  the  Roman  empire. 

The  contemporary  secular  history  includes  the  reigns  of  the 
Roman  Emperors  from  Tiberius  to  Nero  and  Domitian,  who 
either  ignored  or  persecuted  Christianity.  We  are  brought 
directly  into  contact  with  King  Herod  Agrippa  I.  (grandson  of 
Herod  the  Great),  the  murderer  of  the  apostle,  James  the  Elder; 
with  his  son  King  Agrippa  II.  (the  last  of  the  Herodian  house), 
who  with  his  sister  Bernice  (a  most  corrupt  woman)  listened 
to  Paul’s  defense;  with  two  Roman  governors,  Felix  and  Fes- 
tus ; with  Pharisees  and  Sadducees ; with  Stoics  and  Epicureans ; 
with  the  temple  and  theatre  at  Ephesus,  with  the  court  of  the 
Areopagus  at  Athens,  and  with  Caesar’s  palace  in  Rome. 

Sources  of  Information. 

The  author  of  Acts  records  the  heroic  march  of  Christianity 
from  the  capital  of  J udaism  to  the  capital  of  heathenism  with 
the  same  artless  simplicity  and  serene  faith  as  the  Evangelists 
tell  the  story  of  Jesus ; well  knowing  that  it  needs  no  embel- 
lishment, no  apology,  no  subjective  reflections,  and  that  it  will 
surely  triumph  by  its  inherent  spiritual  power. 

The  Acts  and  the  Pauline  Epistles  accompany  us  with  relia- 
ble information  down  to  the  year  63.  Peter  and  Paul  are  lost 
out  of  sight  in  the  lurid  fires  of  the  Neronian  persecution  which 
seemed  to  consume  Christianity  itself.  We  know  nothing  cer- 
tain of  that  satanic  spectacle  from  authentic  sources  beyond  the 


1 Rom.  15  : 24.  Comp.  Clement  of  Rome,  Ad  Cor.  c.  5,  4ir\  rb  repfia  rrjs 
Suo-ecot  tX&uv.  This  passage,  however,  does  not  necessarily  mean  Spain,  and 
Paul’s  journey  to  Spain  stands  or  falls  with  the  hypothesis  of  hip  second 
Roman  captivity. 


196 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


information  of  heathen  historians.1  A few  years  afterwards 
followed  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  which  must  have  made  an 
overpowering  impression  and  broken  the  last  ties  which  bound 
Jewish  Christianity  to  the  old  theocracy.  The  event  is  indeed 
brought  before  us  in  the  prophecy  of  Christ  as  recorded  in  the 
Gospels,  but  for  the  terrible  fulfilment  we  are  dependent  on  the 
account  of  an  unbelieving  Jew,  which,  as  the  testimony  of  an 
enemy,  is  all  the  more  impressive. 

The  remaining  thirty  years  of  the  first  century  are  involved 
in  mysterious  darkness,  illuminated  only  by  the  writings  of 
John.  This  is  a period  of  church  history  about  which  we  know 
least  and  would  like  to  know  most.  This  period  is  the  favorite 
field  for  ecclesiastical  fables  and  critical  conjectures.  How 
thankfully  would  the  historian  hail  the  discovery  of  any  new 
authentic  documents  between  the  martyrdom  of  Peter  and  Paul 
and  the  death  of  John,  and  again  between  the  death  of  John 
and  the  age  of  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenseus. 

Causes  of  Success. 

As  to  the  numerical  strength  of  Christianity  at  the  close  of 
the  first  century,  we  have  no  information  whatever.  Statistical 
reports  were  unknown  in  those  days.  The  estimate  of  half  a 
million  among  the  one  hundred  millions  or  more  inhabitants  of 
the  Poman  empire  is  probably  exaggerated.  The  pentecostal 
conversion  of  three  thousand  in  one  day  at  Jerusalem,2  and  the 
“ immense  multitude  ” of  martyrs  under  Nero,3  favor  a high  esti- 
mate. The  churches  in  Antioch  also,  Ephesus,  and  Corinth  were 
strong  enough  to  bear  the  strain  of  controversy  and  division  into 
parties.4  But  the  majority  of  congregations  were  no  doubt  small, 

1 Unless  we  find  allusions  to  it  in  the  Revelation  of  John,  6 : 9-11 ; 17  : 6 ; 
18:  24,  comp.  ver.  20  (“ye  holy  apostles  and  prophets”).  See  Bleek,  Vorle- 
sungen  uher  die  Apokalypse , Berlin,  1862,  p.  120. 

5 Acts  2 : 41. 

3 Tacitus,  Anal.  XV.  44,  speaks  of  a “ multitude  ingens  ” who  were  con- 
victed  of  the  “ odium  generis  humani ,”  i.  e.  of  Christianity  (regarded  as  a 
Jewish  sect),  and  cruelly  executed  under  Nero  in  64. 

4 Gal.  2 : 1 sqq.  ; 1 Cor.  3 : 3 sqq. 


§ 21.  GENERAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE.  197 

often  a mere  handful  of  poor  people.  In  the  country  districts 
paganism  (as  the  name  indicates)  lingered  longest,  even  beyond 
the  age  of  Constantine.  The  Christian  converts  belonged  mostly 
to  the  middle  and  lower  classes  of  society,  such  as  fishermen, 
peasants,  mechanics,  traders,  freedmen,  slaves.  St.  Paul  says : 
“ Not  many  wise  after  the  flesh,  not  many  mighty,  not  many 
noble  were  called,  but  God  chose  the  foolish  things  of  the  world, 
that  he  might  put  to  shame  them  that  are  wise  ; and  God  chose 
the  weak  things  of  the  world  that  he  might  put  to  shame  the 
things  that  are  strong;  and  the  base  things  of  the  world,  and 
the  things  that  are  despised,  did  God  choose,  yea,  and  the  things 
that  are  not,  that  he  might  bring  to  naught  the  things  that  are  : 
that  no  flesh  should  glory  before  God.”  1 And  yet  these  poor, 
illiterate  churches  were  the  recipients  of  the  noblest  gifts,  and 
alive  to  the  deepest  problems  and  highest  thoughts  which  can 
challenge  the  attention  of  an  immortal  mind.  Christianity 
built  from  the  foundation  upward.  From  the  lower  ranks  come 
the  rising  men  of  the  future,  who  constantly  reinforce  the  higher 
ranks  and  prevent  their  decay. 

At  the  time  of  the  conversion  of  Constantine,  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  fourth  century,  the  number  of  Christians  may  have 
reached  ten  or  twelve  millions,  that  is  about  one-tenth  of  the 
total  population  of  the  Roman  empire.  Some  estimate  it  higher. 

The  rapid  success  of  Christianity  under  the  most  unfavorable 
circumstances  is  surprising  and  its  own  best  vindication.  It  was 
achieved  in  the  face  of  an  indifferent  or  hostile  world,  and  by 
purely  spiritual  and  moral  means,  without  shedding  a drop  of 
blood  except  that  of  its  own  innocent  martyrs.  Gibbon,  in  the 
famous  fifteenth  chapter  of  his  “ History,”  attributes  the  rapid 
spread  to  five  causes,  namely : (1)  the  intolerant  but  enlarged  reli- 
gious zeal  of  the  Christians  inherited  from  the  Jews ; (2)  the 
doctrine  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  concerning  which  the 
ancient  philosophers  had  but  vague  and  dreamy  ideas ; (3)  the 
miraculous  powers  attributed  to  the  primitive  church ; (4)  the 


1 1 Cor.  1 : 26-29. 


198 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


purer  but  austere  morality  of  the  first  Christians ; (5)  the  unity 
and  discipline  of  the  church,  which  gradually  formed  a growing 
commonwealth  in  the  heart  of  the  empire.  But  every  one  of 
these  causes,  properly  understood,  points  to  the  superior  excel- 
lency and  to  the  divine  origin  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  this 
is  the  chief  cause,  which  the  Deistic  historian  omits. 

Significance  of  the  Apostolic  Age. 

The  life  of  Christ  is  the  divine-human  fountain-head  of  the 
Christian  religion  ; the  apostolic  age  is  the  fountain-head  of  the 
Christian  church,  as  an  organized  society  separate  and  distinct 
from  the  Jewish  synagogue.  It  is  the  age  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
the  age  of  inspiration  and  legislation  for  all  subsequent  ages. 

Here  springs,  in  its  original  freshness  and  purity,  the  living 
water  of  the  new  creation.  Christianity  comes  down  from 
heaven  as  a supernatural  fact,  yet  long  predicted  and  prepared 
for,  and  adapted  to  the  deepest  wants  of  human  nature.  Signs 
and  wonders  and  extraordinary  demonstrations  of  the  Spirit,  for 
the  conversion  of  unbelieving  Jews  and  heathens,  attend  its  en- 
trance into  the  world  of  sin.  It  takes  up  its  permanent  abode 
with  our  fallen  race,  to  transform  it  gradually,  without  war  or 
bloodshed,  by  a quiet,  leaven-like  process,  into  a kingdom  of 
truth  and  righteousness.  Modest  and  humble,  lowly  and  un- 
seemly in  outward  appearance,  but  steadily  conscious  of  its 
divine  origin  and  its  eternal  destiny ; without  silver  or  gold,  but 
rich  in  supernatural  gifts  and  powers,  strong  in  faith,  fervent 
in  love,  and  joyful  in  hope ; bearing  in  earthen  vessels  the  im- 
perishable treasures  of  heaven,  it  presents  itself  upon  the  stage 
of  history  as  the  only  true,  the  perfect  religion,  for  all  the  na- 
tions of  the  earth.  At  first  an  insignificant  and  even  contempti- 
ble sect  in  tbe  eyes  of  the  carnal  mind,  hated  and  persecuted  by 
Jews  and  heathens,  it  confounds  the  wisdom  of  Greece  and  the 
power  of  Borne,  soon  plants  the  standard  of  the  cross  in  the 
great  cities  of  Asia,  Africa,  and  Europe,  and  proves  itself  the 
hope  of  the  world. 

In  virtue  of  this  original  purity,  vigor,  and  beauty,  and  the  per 


§ 21.  GENERAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE.  199 

manent  success  of  primitive  Christianity,  the  canonical  authority 
of  the  single  but  inexhaustible  volume  of  its  literature,  and  the 
character  of  the  apostles,  those  inspired  organs  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  those  untaught  teachers  of  mankind,  the  apostolic  age 
has  an  incomparable  interest  and  importance  in  the  history  of 
the  church.  It  is  the  immovable  groundwork  of  the  whole.  It 
has  the  same  regulative  force  for  all  the  subsequent  develop- 
ments of  the  church  as  the  inspired  writings  of  the  apostles  have 
for  the  works  of  all  later  Christian  authors. 

Furthermore,  the  apostolic  Christianity  is  preformative,  and 
contains  the  living  germs  of  all  the  following  periods,  person- 
ages, and  tendencies.  It  holds  up  the  highest  standard  of  doc- 
trine and  discipline ; it  is  the  inspiring  genius  of  all  true  prog- 
ress; it  suggests  to  every  age  its  peculiar  problem  with  the 
power  to  solve  it.  Christianity  can  never  outgrow  Christ,  but  it 
grows  in  Christ ; theology  cannot  go  beyond  the  word  of  God, 

but  it  must  ever  progress  in  the  understanding  and  application 
of  the  word  of  God.  The  three  leading  apostles  represent  not 
only  the  three  stages  of  the  apostolic  church,  but  also  as  many 
ages  and  types  of  Christianity,  and  yet  they  are  all  present  in 
every  age  and  every  type.1 

The  Representative  Apostles. 

Peter,  Paul,  and  John  stand  out  most  prominently  as  the 
chosen  Three  who  accomplished  the  great  work  of  the  apostolic 
age,  and  exerted,  by  their  writings  and  example,  a controlling 
influence  on  all  subsequent  ages.  To  them  correspond  three 
centres  of  influence,  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  and  Rome. 

Our  Lord  himself  had  chosen  Three  out  of  the  Twelve  for  his 
most  intimate  companions,  who  alone  witnessed  the  Transfigura- 
tion and  the  agony  in  Gethsemane.  They  fulfilled  all  the  expec- 
tations, Peter  and  John  by  their  long  and  successful  labors, 
James  the  Elder  by  drinking  early  the  bitter  cup  of  his  Master, 

1 On  the  typical  import  of  apostolic  Christianity  compare  the  concluding 
seotion  of  my  History  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  pp.  674  sqq. 


200 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


as  tlie  proto-martyr  of  the  Twelve.1  Since  his  death,  a.d.  44. 
James,  u the  brother  of  the  Lord,”  seems  to  have  succeeded  him, 
as  one  of  the  three  “ pillars  ” of  the  church  of  the  circumcision, 
although  he  did  not  belong  to  the  apostles  in  the  strict  sense  of 
the  term,  and  his  influence,  as  the  head  of  the  church  at  Jeru- 
salem, was  more  local  than  oecumenical.8 

Paul  was  called  last  and  out  of  the  regular  order,  by  the  per- 
sonal appearance  of  the  exalted  Lord  from  heaven,  and  in  author- 
ity and  importance  he  was  equal  to  any  of  the  three  pillars,  but 
filled  a place  of  his  own,  as  the  independent  apostle  of  the  Gen- 
tiles. He  had  around  him  a small  band  of  co-laborers  and  pupils, 
such  as  Barnabas,  Silas,  Titus,  Timothy,  Luke. 

Nine  of  the  original  Twelve,  including  Matthias,  who  was 
chosen  in  the  place  of  Judas,  labored  no  doubt  faithfully  and 
effectively,  in  preaching  the  gospel  throughout  the  Homan  em- 
pire and  to  the  borders  of  the  barbarians,  but  in  subordinate 
positions,  and  their  labors  are  known  to  us  only  from  vague  and 
uncertain  traditions.3 

The  labors  of  James  and  Peter  we  can  follow  in  the  Acts  to 
the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  a.d.  50,  and  a little  beyond ; those  of 
Paul  to  his  first  imprisonment  in  Home,  a.d.  61-63  ; John  lived 
to  the  close  of  the  first  century.  As  to  their  last  labors  we  have 
no  authentic  information  in  the  New  Testament,  but  the  unani- 
mous testimony  of  antiquity  that  Peter  and  Paul  suffered  mar- 
tyrdom in  Rome  during  or  after  the  Neronian  persecution,  and 

1 Matt.  22  : 23  ; Acts  12  : 2. 

2 Gal.  2 : 9.  James  is  even  named  before  Cephas  and  John,  and  throughout 
the  Acts  from  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  at  which  he  presided,  he  appears  as 
the  most  prominent  man  in  the  churches  of  Palestine.  In  the  Ebionite  tradi- 
tion he  figures  as  the  first  universal  bishop  or  pope. 

3 The  apocryphal  tradition  of  the  second  and  later  centuries  assigns  to 
Peter,  Andrew,  Matthew,  and  Bartholomew,  as  their  field  of  missionary 
labor,  the  regions  north  and  northwest  of  Palestine  (Syria,  Galatia,  Pontus, 
Scythia,  and  the  coasts  of  the  Black  Sea) ; to  Thaddaeus,  Thomas,  and  Simon 
Cananites  the  eastern  countries  (Mesopotamia,  Parthia,  especially  Edessa  and 
Babylon,  and  even  as  far  as  India) ; to  John  and  Philip  Asia  Minor  (Ephesus 
and  Hierapolis).  Comp,  the  Acta  Sanctorum ; Tischendorf’s  Acta  Apostolo - 
rum  Apocrypha  (1851) ; and  for  a brief  summary  my  History  of  the  Apost 
Church , § 97,  pp.  385  sqq. 


§ 21.  GENERAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE.  201 


that  John  died  a natural  death  at  Ephesus.  The  Acts  breaks 
off  abruptly  with  Paul  still  living  and  working,  a prisoner  in 
Rome,  “ preaching  the  kingdom  of  God  and  teaching  the  things 
concerning  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  with  all  boldness,  none  for- 
bidding him.”  A significant  conclusion. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  find  three  men  equally  great  and  good, 
equally  endowed  with  genius  sanctified  by  grace,  bound  together 
by  deep  and  strong  love  to  the  common  Master,  and  laboring 
for  the  same  cause,  yet  so  different  in  temper  and  constitution, 
as  Peter,  Paul,  and  John.  Peter  stands  out  in  history  as  the 
main  pillar  of  the  primitive  church,  as  the  Rock-apostle,  as  the 
chief  of  the  twelve  foundation-stones  of  the  new  Jerusalem ; 
John  as  the  bosom-friend  of  the  Saviour,  as  the  son  of  thunder, 
as  the  soaring  eagle,  as  the  apostle  of  love ; Paul  as  the  cham- 
pion of  Christian  freedom  and  progress,  as  the  greatest  mission- 
ary, with  “ the  care  of  all  the  churches  ” upon  his  heart,  as  the 
expounder  of  the  Christian  system  of  doctrine,  as  the  father  of 
Christian  theology.  Peter  was  a man  of  action,  always  in 
haste  and  ready  to  take  the  lead,  the  first  to  confess  Christ,  and 
the  first  to  preach  Christ  on  the  day  of  Pentecost ; Paul  a man 
equally  potent  in  word  and  deed ; John  a man  of  mystic  con- 
templation. Peter  was  unlearned  and  altogether  practical; 
Paul  a scholar  and  thinker  as  well  as  a worker ; John  a theoso- 
phist  and  seer.  Peter  was  sanguine,  ardent,  impulsive,  hopeful, 
kind-hearted,  given  to  sudden  changes,  “ consistently  inconsis- 
tent ” (to  use  an  Aristotelian  phrase) ; Paul  was  choleric,  ener- 
getic, bold,  noble,  independent,  uncompromising;  John  some 
what  melancholic,  introverted,  reserved,  burning  within  of  love 
to  Christ  and  hatred  of  Antichrist.  Peter’s  Epistles  are  full  of 
sweet  grace  and  comfort,  the  result  of  deep  humiliation  and  rich 
experience ; those  of  Paul  abound  in  severe  thought  and  logical 
argument,  but  rising  at  times  to  the  heights  of  celestial  eloquence, 
as  in  the  seraphic  description  of  love  and  the  triumphant  paean 
of  the  eighth  chapter  of  the  Romans ; John’s  writings  are  sim- 
ple, serene,  profound,  intuitive,  sublime,  inexhaustible. 

We  would  like  to  know  more  about  the  personal  relations  of 


202 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


these  pillar-apostles,  but  must  be  satisfied  with  a few  hints. 
They  labored  in  different  fields  and  seldom  met  face  to  face  in 
their  busy  life.  Time  was  too  precious,  their  work  too  serious, 
for  sentimental  enjoyments  of  friendship.  Paul  went  to  Jeru- 
salem a.d.  40,  three  years  after  his  conversion,  for  the  express 
purpose  of  making  the  personal  acquaintance  of  Peter,  and  spent 
two  weeks  with  him  ; he  saw  none  of  the  other  apostles,  but  only 
James,  the  Lord’s  brother.1  He  met  the  pillar-apostles  at  the 
Conference  in  Jerusalem,  a.d.  50,  and  concluded  with  them  the 
peaceful  concordat  concerning  the  division  of  labor,  and  the 
question  of  circumcision ; the  older  apostles  gave  him  and  Bar- 
nabas “the  right  hands  of  fellowship”  in  token  of  brotherhood 
and  fidelity.2  Hot  long  afterwards  Paul  met  Peter  a third 
time,  at  Antioch,  but  came  into  open  collision  with  him  on  the 
great  question  of  Christian  freedom  and  the  union  of  Jewish 
and  Gentile  converts.3  The  collision  was  merely  temporary,  but 
significantly  reveals  the  profound  commotion  and  fermentation 
of  the  apostolic  age,  and  foreshadowed  future  antagonisms  and 
reconciliations  in  the  church.  Several  years  later  (a.d.  57)  Paul 
refers  the  last  time  to  Cephas,  and  the  brethren  of  the  Lord,  for 
the  right  to  marry  and  to  take  a wife  with  him  on  his  mission- 
ary journeys.4  Peter,  in  his  first  Epistle  to  Pauline  churches, 
confirms  them  in  their  Pauline  faith,  and  in  his  second  Epistle, 
his  last  will  and  testament,  he  affectionately  commends  the  let- 
ters of  his  “ beloved  brother  Paul,”  adding,  however,  the  char- 
acteristic remark,  which  all  commentators  must  admit  to  be  true, 
that  (even  beside  the  account  of  the  scene  in  Antioch)  there  are  in 
them  “ some  things  hard  to  be  understood.”  6 According  to  tra- 

1 Gal.  1 : 18,  19.  The  el  nv  in  this  connection  rather  excludes  James  from 
the  number  of  the  Twelve,  but  implies  that  he  was  an  apostle  in  a wider 
sense,  and  a leader  of  apostolic  dignity  and  authority.  Comp,  the  el  /j.4]  ( sed 
tantum ) Luke  4 : 26,  27 ; Rom.  14  : 14  ; Gal.  2 : 16. 

5 Acts  15  ; Gal  2 : 1-10. 

3 GaL  2 : 11-21. 

4 1 Cor.  9:5;  comp.  Matt.  8 : 14. 

6 2 Pet.  3 : 15,  16,  tvffvdrfrd  nva.  This  passage,  and  the  equally  significant 
remark  of  Peter  (1  : 20)  that  “ no  prophecy  of  Scripture  is  of  'private  inter- 
pretation,” or  solution,  have  often  been  abused  by  the  popes  as  a pretext  fox 


§ 21.  GENERAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE.  203 


dition  (which  varies  considerably  as  to  details),  the  great  lead- 
ers of  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christianity  met  at  Home,  were  tried 
and  condemned  together,  Paul,  the  Homan  citizen,  to  the  death 
by  the  sword  on  the  Ostian  road  at  Tre  Fontane ; Peter,  the 
Galilean  apostle,  to  the  more  degrading  death  of  the  cross  on 
the  hill  of  Janiculum.  John  mentions  Peter  frequently  in  his 
Gospel,  especially  in  the  appendix,1  but  never  names  Paul ; he 
met  him,  as  it  seems,  only  once,  at  Jerusalem,  gave  him  the  right 
hand  of  fellowship,  became  his  successor  in  the  fruitful  field  of 
Asia  Minor,  and  built  on  his  foundation. 

Peter  was  the  chief  actor  in  the  first  stage  of  apostolic  Chris- 
tianity and  fulfilled  the  prophecy  of  his  name  in  laying  the  foun- 
dation of  the  church  among  the  Jews  and  the  Gentiles.  In  the 
second  stage  he  is  overshadowed  by  the  mighty  labors  of  Paul ; 
but  after  the  apostolic  age  he  stands  out  again  most  prominent 
in  the  memory  of  the  church.  He  is  chosen  by  the  Homan 
communion  as  its  special  patron  saint  and  as  the  first  pope.  He 
is  always  named  before  Paul.  To  him  most  of  the  churches  are 
dedicated.  In  the  name  of  this  poor  fisherman  of  Galilee,  who 
had  neither  gold  nor  silver,  and  was  crucified  like  a malefactor 
and  a slave,  the  triple-crowned  popes  deposed  kings,  shook  em- 
pires, dispensed  blessings  and  curses  on  earth  and  in  purgatory, 
and  even  now  claim  the  power  to  settle  infallibly  all  questions 
of  Christian  doctrine  and  discipline  for  the  Catholic  world. 

Paul  was  the  chief  actor  in  the  second  stage  of  the  apostolic 
church,  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  the  founder  of  Christianity 
in  Asia  Minor  and  Greece,  the  emancipator  of  the  new  religion 
from  the  yoke  of  Judaism,  the  herald  of  evangelical  freedom, 
the  standard-bearer  of  reform  and  progress.  His  controlling 
influence  was  felt  also  in  Home,  and  is  clearly  seen  in  the  genu- 
withholding the  Scriptures  from  the  people  and  insisting  on  the  necessity  of  an 
authoritative  interpretation.  The  passage  refers  to  the  prophecies  of  the 
Old  Testament,  which  are  not  the  productions  of  the  human  mind,  but  in- 
spired by  the  Holy  Ghost  (ver.  21),  and  cannot  be  properly  understood  except 
as  divinely  inspired. 

1 John  21 : 15-23.  The  last  word  of  the  Lord  about  Peter  and  John  is  very 
mysterious. 


204 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


ine  Epistle  of  Clement,  who  makes  more  account  of  him  than 
of  Peter.  But  soon  afterwards  he  is  almost  forgotten,  except 
by  name.  He  is  indeed  associated  with  Peter  as  the  founder  of 
the  church  of  Home,  but  in  a secondary  line  ; his  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  is  little  read  and  understood  by  the  Romans  even  to 
this  day  ; his  church  lies  outside  of  the  walls  of  the  eternal  city, 
while  St.  Peter’s  is  its  chief  ornament  and  glory.  In  Africa 
alone  he  was  appreciated,  first  by  the  rugged  and  racy  Tertullian, 
more  fully  by  the  profound  Augustine,  who  passed  through  simi- 
lar contrasts  in  his  religious  experience ; but  Augustine’s  Pauline 
doctrines  of  sin  and  grace  had  no  effect  whatever  on  the  Eastern 
church,  and  were  practically  overpowered  in  the  Western  church 
by  Pelagian  tendencies.  For  a long  time  Paul’s  name  was  used 
and  abused  outside  of  the  ruling  orthodoxy  and  hierarchy  by  anti- 
catholic heretics  and  sectaries  in  their  protest  against  the  new 
yoke  of  traditionalism  and  ceremonialism.  But  in  the  sixteenth 
century  he  celebrated  a real  resurrection  and  inspired  the  evan- 
gelical reformation.  Then  his  Epistles  to  the  Galatians  and 
Romans  were  republished,  explained,  and  applied  with  trumpet 
tongues  by  Luther  and  Calvin.  Then  his  protest  against  Juda- 
izing  bigotry  and  legal  bondage  was  renewed,  and  the  rights  of 
Christian  liberty  asserted  on  the  largest  scale.  Of  all  men  in 
church  history,  St.  Augustine  not  excepted,  Martin  Luther,  once 
a contracted  monk,  then  a prophet  of  freedom,  has  most  affinity 
in  word  and  work  with  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  and  ever  since 
Paul’s  genius  has  ruled  the  theology  and  religion  of  Protes- 
tantism. As  the  gospel  of  Christ  was  cast  out  from  J erusalem 
to  bless  the  Gentiles,  so  Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Romans  was  ex- 
pelled from  Rome  to  enlighten  and  to  emancipate  Protestant 
nations  in  the  distant  North  and  far  West. 

St.  John,  the  most  intimate  companion  of  Jesus,  the  apostle 
of  love,  the  seer  who  looked  back  to  the  ante-mundane  begin- 
ning and  forward  to  the  post-mundane  end  of  all  things,  and 
who  is  to  tarry  till  the  coming  of  the  Lord,  kept  aloof  from 
active  part  in  the  controversies  between  Jewish  and  Gentile 
Christianity.  He  appears  prominent  in  the  Acts  and  the  Epis- 


§ 22.  APOSTOLIC  AGE — CRITICAL  RECONSTRUCTION.  205 


tie  to  the  Galatians,  as  one  of  the  pillar-apostles,  but  not  a 
word  of  his  is  reported,  lie  was  waiting  in  mysterious  silence, 
with  a reserved  force,  for  his  proper  time,  which  did  not  come 
till  Peter  and  Paul  had  finished  their  mission.  Then,  after 
their  departure,  he  revealed  the  hidden  depths  of  his  genius  in 
his  marvellous  writings,  which  represent  the  last  and  crowning 
work  of  the  apostolic  church.  John  has  never  been  fully  fath- 
omed, but  it  has  been  felt  throughout  all  the  periods  of  church 
history  that  he  has  best  understood  and  portrayed  the  Master, 
and  may  yet  speak  the  last  word  in  the  conflict  of  ages  and 
usher  in  an  era  of  harmony  and  peace.  Paul  is  the  heroic  cap- 
tain of  the  church  militant,  John  the  mystic  prophet  of  the 
church  triumphant. 

Far  above  them  all,  throughout  the  apostolic  age  and  all  sub- 
sequent ages,  stands  the  one  great  Master  from  whom  Peter, 
Paul,  and  John  drew  their  inspiration,  to  whom  they  bowed  in 
holy  adoration,  whom  alone  they  served  and  glorified  in  life  and 
in  death,  and  to  whom  they  still  point  in  their  writings  as  the 
perfect  image  of  God,  as  the  Saviour  from  sin  and  death,  as  the 
Giver  of  eternal  life,  as  the  divine  harmony  of  conflicting  creeds 
and  schools,  as  the  Alpha  and  Omega  of  the  Christian  faith. 


§ 22.  The  Critical  Reconsti'uction  of  the  History  of  the 
Apostolic  Age. 

"Die  Botschaft  hbr ' ich  wohly  allein  mirfehlt  der  Glaube .” 

(Goethe.) 

Never  before  in  the  history  of  the  church  has  the  origin  of  Christianity, 
with  its  original  documents,  been  so  thoroughly  examined  from  stand- 
points entirely  opposite  as  in  the  present  generation.  It  has  engaged 
the  time  and  energy  of  many  of  the  ablest  scholars  and  critics.  Such  is 
the  importance  and  the  power  of  that  little  book  which  “ contains  the 
wisdom  of  the  whole  world,”  that  it  demands  ever  new  investigation  and 
sets  serious  minds  of  all  shades  of  belief  and  unbelief  in  motion,  as  if 
their  very  life  depended  upon  its  acceptance  or  rejection.  There  is  not 
a fact  or  doctrine  which  has  not  been  thoroughly  searched.  The  whole 
life  of  Christ,  and  the  labors  and  writings  of  the  apostles  with  their  ten- 
dencies, antagonisms,  and  reconciliations  are  theoretically  reproduced 


206 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-1 00. 


among  scholars  and  reviewed  under  all  possible  aspects.  The  post' 
apostolic  age  has  by  necessary  connection  been  drawn  into  the  process 
of  investigation  and  placed  in  a new  light. 

The  great  biblical  scholars  among  the  Fathers  were  chiefly  concerned 
in  drawing  from  the  sacred  records  the  catholic  doctrines  of  salvation, 
and  the  precepts  for  a holy  life ; the  Reformers  and  older  Protestant 
divines  studied  them  afresh  with  special  zeal  for  the  evangelical  tenets 
which  separated  them  from  the  Roman  church ; but  all  stood  on  the 
common  ground  of  a reverential  belief  in  the  divine  inspiration  and 
authority  of  the  Scriptures.  The  present  age  is  preeminently  historical 
and  critical.  The  Scriptures  are  subjected  to  the  same  process  of  inves- 
tigation and  analysis  as  any  other  literary  production  of  antiquity,  with 
no  other  purpose  than  to  ascertain  the  real  facts  in  the  case.  We  want 
to  know  the  precise  origin,  gradual  growth,  and  final  completion  of 
Christianity  as  an  historical  phenomenon  in  organic  connection  with  con- 
temporary events  and  currents  of  thought.  The  whole  process  through 
which  it  passed  from  the  manger  in  Bethlehem  to  the  cross  of  Calvary, 
and  from  the  upper  room  in  Jerusalem  to  the  throne  of  the  Caesars  is  to 
be  reproduced,  explained  and  understood  according  to  the  laws  of  regu- 
lar historical  development.  And  in  this  critical  process  the  very  founda- 
tions of  the  Christian  faith  have  been  assailed  and  undermined,  so  that 
the  question  now  is,  “to  be  or  not  to  be.”  The  remark  of  Goethe  is  as 
profound  as  it  is  true  : “ The  conflict  of  faith  and  unbelief  remains  the 
proper,  the  only,  the  deepest  theme  of  the  history  of  the  world  and  man- 
kind, to  which  all  others  are  subordinated.” 

The  modem  critical  movement  began,  we  may  say,  about  1830,  is  still  in 
full  progress,  and  is  likely  to  continue  to  the  end  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, as  the  apostolic  church  itself  extended  over  a period  of  seventy 
years  before  it  had  developed  its  resources.  It  was  at  first  confined  to 
Germany  (Strauss,  Baur,  and  the  Tubingen  School),  then  spread  to 
France  (Renan)  and  Holland  (Scholten,  Kuenen),  and  last  to  England 
(“  Supernatural  Religion  ”)  and  America,  so  that  the  battle  now  ex- 
tends along  the  whole  line  of  Protestantism. 

There  are  two  kinds  of  biblical  criticism,  verbal  and  historical. 

Textual  Criticism. 

The  verbal  or  textual  criticism  has  for  its  object  to  restore  as  far  as 
possible  the  original  text  of  the  Greek  Testament  from  the  oldest  and 
most  trustworthy  sources,  namely,  the  uncial  manuscripts  (especially 
the  Vatican  and  Sinai  tic),  the  ante-Nicene  versions,  and  the  patris- 
tic quotations.  In  this  respect  our  age  has  been  very  successful,  with 
the  aid  of  most  important  discoveries  of  ancient  manuscripts.  By  the 
invaluable  labors  of  Lachmann,  who  broke  the  path  for  the  correct  theory 
{Novum  Testament.  Gr.,  1831,  large  Graeco-Latin  edition,  1842-50,  2 vols.), 
Tischendorf  (8th  critical  ed.,  1869-72,  2 vols.),  Tregelles  (1857,  completed 


§ 22.  APOSTOLIC  AGE — CRITICAL  RECONSTRUCTION.  207 


1879),  Westcott  and  Hort  (1881,  2 vols.),  we  have  now  in  the  place  of 
the  comparatively  late  and  corrupt  textus  receptus  of  Erasmus  and  his 
followers  (Stephens,  Beza,  and  the  Elzevirs),  which  is  the  basis  of  all 
Protestant  versions  in  common  use,  a much  older  and  purer  text,  which 
must  henceforth  be  made  the  basis  of  all  revised  translations.  After  a 
severe  struggle  between  the  traditional  and  the  progressive  schools  there 
is  now  in  this  basal  department  of  biblical  learning  a remarkable  degree 
of  harmony  among  critics.  The  new  text  is  in  fact  the  older  text,  and 
the  reformers  are  in  this  case  the  restorers.  Ear  from  unsettling  the 
faith  in  the  New  Testament,  the  results  have  established  the  substantial 
integrity  of  the  text,  notwithstanding  the  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand 
readings  which  have  been  gradually  gathered  from  all  sources.  It  is  a 
noteworthy  fact  that  the  greatest  textual  critics  of  the  nineteenth  century 
are  believers,  not  indeed  in  a mechanical  or  magical  inspiration,  which 
is  untenable  and  not  worth  defending,  but  in  the  divine  origin  and 
authority  of  the  canonical  writings,  which  rest  on  far  stronger  grounds 
than  any  particular  human  theory  of  inspiration. 

Historical  Criticism. 

The  historical  or  inner  criticism  (which  the  Germans  call  the  “ higher 
criticism,”  hohere  Kritik ) deals  with  the  origin,  spirit,  and  aim  of  the  New 
Testament  writings,  their  historical  environments,  and  organic  place  in 
the  great  intellectual  and  religious  process  which  resulted  in  the  triumph- 
ant establishment  of  the  catholic  church  of  the  second  century.  It 
assumed  two  very  distinct  shapes  under  the  lead  of  Dr.  Neander  in  Ber- 
lin (d.  1850),  and  Dr.  Baur  in  Tubingen  (d.  1860),  who  labored  in  the 
mines  of  church  history  at  a respectful  distance  from  each  other  and 
never  came  into  personal  contact.  Neander  and  Baur  were  giants,  equal 
in  genius  and  learning,  honesty  and  earnestness,  but  widely  different  in 
spirit.  They  gave  a mighty  impulse  to  historical  study  and  left  a long 
line  of  pupils  and  independent  followers  who  carry  on  the  historico- 
critical  reconstruction  of  primitive  Christianity.  Their  influence  is  felt 
in  France,  Holland  and  England.  Neander  published  the  first  edition 
of  his  Apostolic  Age  in  1832,  his  Life  of  Jesus  (against  Strauss)  in  1837 
(the  first  volume  of  his  General  Church  History  had  appeared  already  in 
1825,  revised  ed.  1842) ; Baur  wrote  his  essay  on  the  Corinthian  Parties 
in  1831,  his  critical  investigations  on  the  canonical  Gospels  in  1844  and 
1847,  his  “Paul”  in  1845  (second  ed.  by  Zeller,  1867),  and  his  “ Church 
History  of  the  First  Three  Centuries  ” in  1853  (revised  1860).  His  pupil 
Strauss  had  preceded  him  with  his  first  Leben  Jesu  (1835),  which  created 
a greater  sensation  than  any  of  the  works  mentioned,  surpassed  only 
by  that  of  Renan’s  Vie  de  Jesus , nearly  thirty  years  later  (1863).  Renan 
reproduces  and  popularizes  Strauss  and  Baur  for  the  French  pub- 
lic with  independent  learning  and  brilliant  genius,  and  the  author  of 
“ Supernatural  Religion  ” reechoes  the  Tubingen  and  Leyden  speculations 


208 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


In  England.  On  the  other  hand  Bishop  Lightfoot,  the  leader  of  conser- 
vative  criticism,  declares  that  he  has  learnt  more  from  the  German  Nean- 
der  than  from  any  recent  theologian  (“  Contemp.  Review  ” for  1875, 
p.  866).  Matthew  Arnold  says  {Literature  and  Dogma,  Preface,  p.  xix.) ; 
“ To  get  the  facts,  the  data,  in  all  matters  of  science,  but  notably  in  the- 
ology and  Biblical  learning,  one  goes  to  Germany.  Germany,  and  it  is 
her  high  honor,  has  searched  out  the  facts  and  exhibited  them.  And 
without  knowledge  of  the  facts,  no  clearness  or  fairness  of  mind  can  in 
any  study  do  anything ; this  cannot  be  laid  down  too  rigidly.”  But  he 
denies  to  the  Germans  “ quickness  and  delicacy  of  perception.”  Some- 
thing more  is  necessary  than  learning  and  perception  to  draw  the  right 
conclusions  from  the  facts  : sound  common  sense  and  well-balanced  judg- 
ment. And  when  we  deal  with  sacred  and  supernatural  facts,  we  need 
first  and  last  a reverential  spirit  and  that  faith  which  is  the  organ  of  the 
supernatural.  It  is  here  where  the  two  schools  depart,  without  differ- 
ence of  nationality ; for  faith  is  not  a national  but  an  individual  gift. 

The  Two  Antagonistic  Schools. 

The  two  theories  of  the  apostolic  history,  introduced  by  Neander  and 
Baur,  are  antagonistic  in  principle  and  aim,  and  united  only  by  the  moral 
bond  of  an  honest  search  for  truth.  The  one  is  conservative  and  recon- 
structive, the  other  radical  and  destructive.  The  former  accepts  the 
canonical  Gospels  and  Acts  as  honest,  truthful,  and  credible  memoirs  of 
the  life  of  Christ  and  the  labors  of  the  apostles ; the  latter  rejects  a great 
part  of  their  contents  as  unliistorical  myths  or  legends  of  the  post-apos- 
tolic age,  and  on  the  other  hand  gives  undue  credit  to  wild  heretical 
romances  of  the  second  century.  The  one  draws  an  essential  line  of  dis- 
tinction between  truth  as  maintained  by  the  orthodox  church,  and  error 
as  held  by  heretical  parties  ; the  other  obliterates  the  lines  and  puts  the 
heresy  into  the  inner  camp  of  the  apostolic  church  itself.  The  one  pro- 
ceeds on  the  basis  of  faith  in  God  and  Christ,  which  implies  faith  in  the 
supernatural  and  miraculous  wherever  it  is  well  attested ; the  other  pro- 
ceeds from  disbelief  in  the  supernatural  and  miraculous  as  a philosophical 
impossibility,  and  tries  to  explain  the  gospel  history  and  the  apostolic 
history  from  purely  natural  causes  like  every  other  history.  The  one  has 
a moral  and  spiritual  as  well  as  intellectual  interest  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  other  a purely  intellectual  and  critical  interest.  The  one 
approaches  the  historical  investigation  with  the  subjective  experience  of 
the  divine  truth  in  the  heart  and  conscience,  and  knows  and  feels  Chris- 
tianity to  be  a power  of  salvation  from  sin  and  error  ; the  other  views  it 
simply  as  the  best  among  the  many  religions  which  are  destined  to  give 
way  at  last  to  the  sovereignty  of  reason  and  philosophy.  The  contro- 
versy turns  on  the  question  whether  there  is  a God  in  History  or  not ; as 
the  contemporaneous  struggle  in  natural  science  turns  on  the  question 
whether  there  is  a God  in  nature  or  not.  Belief  in  a personal  God 


§ 22.  APOSTOLIC  AGE — CRITICAL  RECONSTRUCTION.  209 


almighty  and  omnipresent  in  history  and  in  nature,  implies  the  possibility 
of  supernatural  and  miraculous  revelation.  Absolute  freedom  from  pre- 
possession ( V or  a ussetzungdosigkeit  such  as  Strauss  demanded)  is  abso- 
lutely impossible,  “ ex  nihilo  nihil  Jit”  There  is  prepossession  on  either 
side  of  the  controversy,  the  one  positive,  the  other  negative,  and  history 
itself  must  decide  between  them.  The  facts  must  rule  philosophy,  not 
philosophy  the  facts.  If  it  can  be  made  out  that  the  life  of  Christ  and  the 
apostolic  church  can  be  psychologically  and  historically  explained  only 
by  the  admission  of  the  supernatural  element  which  they  claim,  while 
every  other  explanation  only  increases  the  difficulty  of  the  problem  and 
substitutes  an  unnatural  miracle  for  a supernatural  one,  the  historian  has 
gained  the  case,  and  it  is  for  the  philosopher  to  adjust  his  theory  to 
history.  The  duty  of  the  historian  is  not  to  make  the  facts,  but  to  dis- 
cover them,  and  then  to  construct  his  theory  wide  enough  to  give  them 
all  comfortable  room. 

The  Alleged  Antagonism  in  the  Apostolic  Church. 

The  theory  of  the  Tubingen  school  starts  from  the  assumption  of  a 
fundamental  antagonism  between  Jewish  or  primitive  Christianity  repre- 
sented by  Peter,  and  Gentile  or  progressive  Christianity  represented  by 
Paul,  and  resolves  all  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  into  tendency 
writings  ( Tendenzschriften ),  which  give  us  not  history  pure  and  simple, 
but  adjust  it  to  a doctrinal  and  practical  aim  in  the  interest  of  one  or  the 
other  party,  or  of  a compromise  between  the  two.1  The  Epistles  of  Paul 
to  the  Galatians,  Romans,  First  and  Second  Corinthians — which  are 
admitted  to  be  genuine  beyond  any  doubt,  exhibit  the  anti-Jewisk  and 
universal  Christianity,  of  which  Paul  himself  must  be  regarded  as  the 
chief  founder.  The  Apocalypse,  which  was  composed  by  the  apostle 
John  in  69,  exhibits  the  original  Jewish  and  contracted  Christianity,  in 
accordance  with  his  position  as  one  of  the  “ pillar ’’-apostles  of  the  cir- 
cumcision (Gal.  2:9),  and  it  is  the  only  authentic  document  of  the  older 
apostles. 

Baur  ( Gesch . der  christl.  Kirche , I.,  80  sqq.)  and  Renan  (St.  Paul , ch.  x.) 
go  so  far  as  to  assert  that  this  genuine  John  excludes  Paul  from  the  list  of 
the  apostles  (Apoc.  21 : 14,  which  leaves  no  room  for  more  than  twelve), 

1 In  this  respect  Baur  differs  from  the  standpoint  of  Strauss,  who  in  his  first 
Lebe/i  Jesu  (1835)  had  represented  the  gospel  history  as  an  innocent  and  un- 
conscious myth  or  poem  of  the  religious  imagination  of  the  second  generation 
of  Christians;  but  in  his  second  Leben  Jesu  (1864)  he  somewhat  modified  his 
view,  and  at  last  (1873)  he  gave  up  the  whole  problem  as  a bad  job.  A ten- 
dency writing  implies  more  or  less  conscious  fiction  and  falsification  of  his- 
tory. The  Tubingen  critics,  however,  try  to  relieve  this  fictitious  literature 
of  the  odious  feature  by  referring  us  to  the  Jewish  and  Christian  apocryphal 
literature  which  was  passed  off  under  honored  names  without  giving  any 
special  offence  on  that  score. 


210 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


and  indirectly  attacks  him  as  a “false  Jew”  (Apoc.  2:9;  3 :9),  a “false 
apostle”  (2  : 2),  a “ false  prophet”  (2  : 20),  as  “ Balaam”  (2  : 2,  6,  14,  15; 
comp.  Jude  11 ; 2 Pet.  2 : 15) ; just  as  the  Clementine  Homilies  assail 
him  under  the  name  of  Simon  the  Magician  and  arch-lieretic.  Renan 
interprets  also  the  whole  Epistle  of  Jude,  a brother  of  James,  as  an 
attack  upon  Paul,  issued  from  Jerusalem  in  connection  with  the  Jewish 
counter-mission  organized  by  James,  which  nearly  ruined  the  work  of 
Paul. 

The  other  writings  of  the  New  Testament  are  post-apostolic  produc- 
tions and  exhibit  the  various  phases  of  a unionistic  movement,  which  re- 
sulted in  the  formation  of  the  orthodox  church  of  the  second  and  third 
centuries.  The  Acts  of  the  Ajmstles  is  a Catholic  Irenicon  which  harmo- 
nizes Jewish  and  Gentile  Christianity  by  liberalizing  Peter  and  contract- 
ing or  Judaizing  Paul,  and  concealing  the  difference  between  them  ; and 
though  probably  based  on  an  earlier  narrative  of  Luke,  it  was  not  put 
into  its  present  shape  before  the  close  of  the  first  century.  The  canoni- 
cal Gospels,  whatever  may  have  been  the  earlier  records  on  which  they 
are  based,  are  likewise  post-apostolic,  and  hence  untrustworthy  as  his- 
torical narratives.  The  Gospel  of  John  is  a purely  ideal  composition  of 
some  unknown  Gnostic  or  mystic  of  profound  religious  genius,  who  dealt 
with  the  historical  Jesus  as  freely  as  Plato  in  his  Dialogues  dealt  with  So- 
crates, and  who  completed  with  consummate  literary  skill  this  unifying 
process  in  the  age  of  Hadrian,  certainly  not  before  the  third  decade  of 
the  second  century.  Baur  brought  it  down  as  late  as  170  ; Hilgenfeld 
put  it  further  back  to  140,  Keim  to  130,  Renan  to  the  age  of  Hadrian. 

Thus  the  whole  literature  of  the  New  Testament  is  represented  as  the 
living  growth  of  a century,  as  a collection  of  polemical  and  irenical  tracts 
of  the  apostolic  and  post-apostolic  ages.  Instead  of  contemporaneous, 
reliable  history  we  have  a series  of  intellectual  movements  and  literary 
fictions.  Divine  revelation  gives  way  to  subjective  visions  and  delusions, 
inspiration  is  replaced  by  development,  truth  by  a mixture  of  truth  and 
error.  The  apostolic  literature  is  put  on  a par  with  the  controversial 
liteVature  of  the  Nicene  age,  which  resulted  in  the  Nicene  orthodoxy,  or 
with  the  literature  of  the  Reformation  period,  which  led  to  the  formation 
of  the  Protestant  system  of  doctrine. 

History  never  repeats  itself,  yet  the  same  laws  and  tendencies  reappear 
in  ever-changing  forms.  This  modern  criticism  is  a remarkable  renewal 
of  the  views  held  by  heretical  schools  in  the  second  century.  The  Ebion- 
ite  author  of  the  pseudo-Clementine  Homilies  and  the  Gnostic  Marcion 
likewise  assumed  an  irreconcilable  antagonism  between  Jewish  and  Gen- 
tile Christianity,  with  this  difference,  that  the  former  opposed  Paul  as 
the  arch-heretic  and  defamer  of  Peter,  while  Marcion  (about  140)  regarded 
Paul  as  the  only  true  apostle,  and  the  older  apostles  as  Jewish  perverters 
of  Christianity  ; consequently  he  rejected  the  whole  Old  Testament  and 
such  books  of  the  New  Testament  as  he  considered  Judaizing,  retaining 


§ 22.  APOSTOLIC  AGE — CRITICAL  RECONSTRUCTION.  211 


in  liis  canon  only  a mutilated  Gospel  of  Luke  and  ten  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles  (excluding  the  Pastoral  Epistles  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews). 
In  the  eyes  of  modern  criticism  these  wild  heretics  are  better  historians 
of  the  apostolic  age  than  the  author  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

The  Gnostic  heresy,  with  all  its  destructive  tendency,  had  an  important 
mission  as  a propelling  force  in  the  ancient  church  and  left  its  effects 
upon  patristic  theology.  So  also  this  modern  gnosticism  must  be 
allowed  to  have  done  great  service  to  biblical  and  historical  learning  by 
removing  old  prejudices,  opening  new  avenues  of  thought,  bringing  to 
light  the  immense  fermentation  of  the  first  century,  stimulating  research, 
and  compelling  an  entire  scientific  reconstruction  of  the  history  of  the 
origin  of  Christianity  and  the  church.  The  result  will  be  a deeper  and 
fuller  knowledge,  not  to  the  weakening,  but  to  the  strengthening  of  our 
faith. 

Reaction. 

There  is  considerable  difference  among  the  scholars  of  this  higher 
criticism,  and  while  some  pupils  of  Baur  (e.  g.  Strauss,  Volkmar)  have 
gone  even  beyond  his  positions,  others  make  concessions  to  the  tradi- 
tional views.  A most  important  change  took  place  in  Baur’s  own  mind 
as  regards  the  conversion  of  Paul,  which  he  confessed  at  last,  shortly 
before  his  death  (1860),  to  be  to  him  an  insolvable  psychological  problem 
amounting  to  a miracle.  Ritschl,  Holtzmann,  Lipsius,  Pfleiderer,  and 
especially  Reuss,  Weizsacker,  and  Keim  (who  are  as  free  from  ortho- 
dox prejudices  as  the  most  advanced  critics)  have  modified  and  corrected 
many  of  the  extreme  views  of  the  Tubingen  school.  Even  Hilgenfeld, 
with  all  his  zeal  for  the  “ Eortschrittstheologie  ” and  against  the  “ Riick- 
schrittstlieologie,”  admits  seven  instead  of  four  Pauline  Epistles  as  genu- 
ine, assigns  an  earlier  date  to  the  Synoptical  Gospels  and  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  (which  he  supposes  to  have  been  written  by  Apollos  before 
70),  and  says  : “It  cannot  be  denied  that  Baur’s  criticism  went  beyond 
the  bounds  of  moderation  and  inflicted  too  deep  wounds  on  the  faith  of 
the  church  ” (Hist.  Krit.  Einleitung  in  das  JST.  T.  1875,  p.  197).  Renan 
admits  nine  Pauline  Epistles,  the  essential  genuineness  of  the  Acts,  and 
even  the  narrative  portions  of  John,  while  he  rejects  the  discourses  as 
pretentious,  inflated,  metaphysical,  obscure,  and  tiresome ! (See  his 
last  discussion  of  the  subject  in  L'eglise  cliretienne , ch.  IV.  pp.  45  sqq.) 
Matthew  Arnold  and  other  critics  reverse  the  proposition  and  accept  the 
discourses  as  the  sublimest  of  all  human  compositions,  full  of  “heavenly 
glories  ” ( himmlische  HerrlichJceiten , to  use  an  expression  of  Keim,  who, 
however,  rejects  the  fourth  Gospel  altogether).  Schenkel  (in  his  Ghristus - 
bild  der  Apostel,  1879)  considerably  moderates  the  antagonism  between 
Petrinism  and  Paulinism,  and  confesses  (Preface,  p.  xi.)  that  in  the  prog- 
ress of  his  investigations  he  has  been  “ forced  to  the  conviction  that  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  a more  trustworthy  source  of  information  than  is 


212 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


commonly  allowed  on  the  part  of  the  modern  criticism ; that  older  docu- 
ments worthy  of  credit,  besides  the  well  known  We- source  ( Wir quelle)  are 
contained  in  it ; and  that  the  Paulinist  who  composed  it  has  not  inten- 
tionally distorted  the  facts,  but  only  placed  them  in  the  light  in  which 
they  appeared  to  him  and  must  have  appeared  to  him  from  the  time 
and  circumstances  under  which  he  wrote.  He  has  not,  in  my  opinion, 
artificially  brought  upon  the  stage  either  a Paulinized  Peter,  or  a Petri- 
nized  Paul,  in  order  to  mislead  his  readers,  but  has  portrayed  the  two 
apostles  just  as  he  actually  conceived  of  them  on  the  basis  of  his  in- 
complete information.”  Keim,  in  his  last  work  (Aus  dem  Urchristen- 
thum,  1878,  a year  before  his  death),  has  come  to  a similar  conclusion, 
and  proves  (in  a critical  essay  on  the  Apostelkonvent,  pp.  64-89)  in  oppo- 
sition to  Baur,  Schwegler,  and  Zeller,  yet  from  the  same  standpoint  of 
liberal  criticism,  and  allowing  later  additions,  the  substantial  harmony 
between  the  Acts  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  as  regards  the  apos- 
tolic conference  and  concordat  of  Jerusalem.  Ewald  always  pursued  his 
own  way  and  equalled  Baur  in  bold  and  arbitrary  criticism,  but  violently 
opposed  him  and  defended  the  Acts  and  the  Gospel  of  John. 

To  these  German  voices  we  may  add  the  testimony  of  Matthew  Arnold, 
one  of  the  boldest  and  broadest  of  the  broad-school  divines  and  critics, 
who  with  all  his  admiration  for  Baur  represents  him  as  an  “unsafe 
guide,”  and  protests  against  his  assumption  of  a bitter  hatred  of  Paul 
and  the  pillar-apostles  as  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  conceded  reli- 
gious greatness  of  Paul  and  with  the  nearness  of  the  pillar-apostles  to 
Jesus  ( God  and  the  Bible , 1875,  Preface,  vii-xii).  As  to  the  fourth  Gospel, 
which  is  now  the  most  burning  spot  of  this  burning  controversy,  the 
same  author,  after  viewing  it  from  without  and  from  within,  comes  to  the 
conclusion  that  it  is  “no  fancy-piece,  but  a serious  and  invaluable  docu- 
ment, full  of  incidents  given  by  tradition  and  genuine  ‘ sayings  of  the 
Lord’  ” (p.  370),  and  that  “ after  the  most  free  criticism  has  been  fairly 
and  strictly  applied,  ....  there  is  yet  left  an  authentic  residue  compris- 
ing all  the  profoundest,  most  important,  and  most  beautiful  things  in  the 
fourth  Gospel  ” (p.  372  sq.). 

The  Positive  School. 

While  there  are  signs  of  disintegration  in  the  ranks  of  destructive 
criticism,  the  historic  truth  and  genuineness  of  the  New  Testament 
writings  have  found  learned  and  able  defenders  from  different  stand- 
points, such  as  Neander,  Ullmann,  C.  F.  Schmid  (the  colleague  of  Baur 
in  Tiibingen),  Itothe,  Dorner,  Ebrard,  Lechler,  Lange,  Thiersch,  Wieselsr, 
Hofmann  (of  Erlangen),  Luthardt,  Christlieb,  Beyschlag,  Uhlhora,  Weiss, 
Godet,  Edm.  de  Pressense. 

The  English  and  American  mind  also  has  fairly  begun  to  grapple  man- 
fully and  successfully  with  these  questions  in  such  scholars  as  Lightfoot, 
Plumptre,  Westcott,  Sanday,  Farrar,  G.  P.  Fisher,  Ezra  Abbot  (on  the 
Authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel , 1880).  English  and  American  theology 


§ 22.  APOSTOLIC  AGE — CRITICAL  RECONSTRUCTION.  213 

is  not  likely  to  be  extensively  demoralized  by  these  hyper-critical  specu- 
lations of  the  Continent.  It  has  a firmer  foothold  in  an  active  church 
life  and  the  convictions  and  affections  of  the  people.  The  German  and 
French  mind,  like  the  Athenian,  is  always  bent  upon  telling  and  hearing 
something  new,  while  the  Anglo-American  mind  cares  more  for  what  is 
true,  whether  it  be  old  or  new.  And  the  truth  must  ultimately  prevail. 

St.  Paul’s  Testimony  to  Historical  Christianity. 

Fortunately  even  the  most  exacting  school  of  modern  criticism  leaves 
us  a fixed  fulcrum  from  which  we  can  argue  the  truth  of  Christianity, 
namely,  the  four  Pauline  Epistles  to  the  Galatians,  Romans,  and  Corin- 
thians, which  are  pronounced  to  be  unquestionably  genuine  and  made 
the  Archimedean  point  of  assault  upon  the  other  parts  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament. We  propose  to  confine  ourselves  to  them.  They  are  of  the 
utmost  historical  as  well  as  doctrinal  importance;  they  represent  the 
first  Christian  generation,  and  were  written  between  54  and  58,  that  is 
within  a quarter  of  the  century  after  the  crucifixion,  when  the  older 
apostles  and  most  of  the  principal  eye-witnesses  of  the  life  of  Christ 
were  still  alive.  The  writer  himself  was  a contemporary  of  Christ ; he 
lived  in  Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  the  great  events  on  which  Christianity 
rests  ; he  was  intimate  with  the  Sanhedrin  and  the  murderers  of  Christ ; 
he  was  not  blinded  by  favorable  prejudice,  but  was  a violent  persecutor, 
who  had  every  motive  to  justify  his  hostility ; and  after  his  radical  con- 
version (a.d.  37)  he  associated  with  the  original  disciples  and  could  leam 
their  personal  experience  from  their  own  lips  (Gal.  1 : 18 ; 2 : 1-11). 

Now  in  these  admitted  documents  of  the  best  educated  of  the  apostles 
we  have  the  clearest  evidence  of  all  the  great  events  and  truths  of  primi- 
tive Christianity,  and  a satisfactory  answer  to  the  chief  objections  and 
difficulties  of  modem  skepticism.1 

They  prove 

1.  The  leading  facts  in  the  life  of  Christ,  his  divine  mission,  his 
birth  from  a woman,  of  the  royal  house  of  David,  his  holy  life  and  ex- 
ample, his  betrayal,  passion,  and  death  for  the  sins  of  the  world,  his 
resurrection  on  the  third  day,  his  repeated  manifestations  to  the  disci- 
ples, his  ascension  and  exaltation  to  the  right  hand  of  God,  whence  he 
will  return  to  judge  mankind,  the  adoration  of  Christ  as  the  Messiah, 
the  Lord  and  Saviour  from  sin,  the  eternal  Son  of  God ; also  the  elec- 
tion of  the  Twelve,  the  institution  of  baptism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper, 
the  mission  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  founding  of  the  church.  Paul  fre- 
quently alludes  to  these  facts,  especially  the  crucifixion  and  resurrection, 
not  in  the  way  of  a detailed  narrative,  but  incidentally  and  in  connection 
with  doctrinal  expositions  and  exhortations  as  addressed  to  men  already 

1 Comp,  here  a valuable  article  of  J.  Oswald  Dykes,  in  the  “Brit,  and  For. 
Evang.  Review,”  Loud.  1880,  pp.  51  sqq. 


214 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


familiar  with  them  from  oral  preaching  and  instruction.  Comp.  Gal 
3:13;  4:4-6;  6:14;  Rom.  1:3;  4:24,25;  5:8-21;  6:3-10;  8:3 
11,  26,  39;  9:5;  10:6,  7;  14:15;  15:3;  1 Cor.  1 : 23;  2:2,  12;  5:7? 
6 : 14 ; 10  : 16 ; 11 : 23-26 ; 15  : 3-8,  45-49 ; 2 Cor.  5 : 21. 

2.  Paul’s  own  conversion  and  call  to  the  apostleship  by  the  personal 
appearance  to  him  of  the  exalted  Redeemer  from  heaven.  Gal.  1 : lf 
15,  16;  1 Cor.  9:1;  15:8. 

3.  The  origin  and  rapid  progress  of  the  Christian  church  in  all  parts  oi 
the  Roman  empire,  from  Jerusalem  to  Antioch  and  Rome,  in  Judaea,  in 
Syria,  in  Asia  Minor,  in  Macedonia  and  Achaia.  The  faith  of  the  Roman 
church,  he  says,  was  known  “throughout  the  world,”  and  “in  every 
place  ” there  were  worshippers  of  J esus  as  their  Lord.  And  these  little 
churches  maintained  a lively  and  active  intercourse  with  each  other,  and 
though  founded  by  different  teachers  and  distracted  by  differences  of 
opinion  and  practice,  they  worshipped  the  same  divine  Lord,  and  formed 
one  brotherhood  of  believers.  Gal.  1:2,  22 ; 2:1,  11 ; Rom.  1:8; 
10  : 18 ; 16  : 26 ; 1 Cor.  1 : 12 ; 8:1;  16  : 19,  etc. 

4.  The  presence  of  miraculous  powers  in  the  church  at  that  time. 
Paul  himself  wrought  the  signs  and  mighty  deeds  of  an  apostle.  Rom. 
15  : 18,  19 ; 1 Cor.  2:4;  9:2;  2 Cor.  12  : 12.  He  lays,  however,  no  great 
stress  on  the  outer  sensible  miracles,  and  makes  more  account  of  the 
inner  moral  miracles  and  the  constant  manifestations  of  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  regenerating  and  sanctifying  sinful  men  in  an  utterly 
corrupt  state  of  society.  1 Cor.  chs.  12  to  14;  6 : 9-11 ; Gal.  5 : 16-26; 
Rom.  chs.  6 and  8. 

5.  The  existence  of  much  earnest  controversy  in  these  young  churches, 
not  indeed  about  the  great  facts  on  which  their  faith  was  based,  and 
which  were  fully  admitted  on  both  sides,  but  about  doctrinal  and  ritual 
inferences  from  these  facts,  especially  the  question  of  the  continued 
obligation  of  circumcision  and  the  Mosaic  law,  and  the  personal  question 
of  the  apostolic  authority  of  Paul.  The  Judaizers  maintained  the  superior 
claims  of  the  older  apostles  and  charged  him  with  a radical  departure 
from  the  venerable  religion  of  their  fathers ; while  Paul  used  against 
them  the  argument  that  the  expiatory  death  of  Christ  and  his  resurrec- 
tion were  needless  and  useless  if  justification  came  from  the  law.  Gal. 
2 : 21 ; 5 : 2-4. 

6.  The  essential  doctrinal  and  spiritual  harmony  of  Paul  with  the 
elder  apostles,  notwithstanding  their  differences  of  standpoint  and  field 
of  labor.  Here  the  testimony  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  ch.  2 : 1-10, 
which  is  the  very  bulwark  of  the  skeptical  school,  bears  strongly  against 
it.  For  Paul  expressly  states  that  the  “ pillar ’’-apostles  of  the  circum- 
cision, James,  Peter,  and  John,  at  the  conference  in  Jerusalem  a.d.  50, 
approved  the  gospel  he  had  been  preaching  during  the  preceding  four- 
teen years;  that  they  “imparted  nothing”  to  him,  gave  him  no  new  in- 
struction, imposed  on  him  no  new  terms,  nor  burden  of  any  kind,  but 


§ 22.  APOSTOLIC  AGE — CRITICAL  RECONSTRUCTION.  215 


that,  on  the  contrary,  they  recognized  the  grace  of  God  in  him  and  his 
special  mission  to  the  Gentiles,  and  gave  him  and  Barnabas  “ the  right 
hands  of  fellowship  ” in  token  of  their  brotherhood  and  fidelity.  He 
makes  a clear  and  sharp  distinction  between  the  apostles  and  “ the  false 
brethren  privily  brought  in,  who  came  to  spy  out  our  liberty  which  we 
have  in  Christ  Jesus,  that  they  might  bring  us  into  bondage,”  and  to 
whom  he  would  not  yield,  “no,  not  for  an  hour.”  The  hardest  words  he 
has  for  the  Jewish  apostles  are  epithets  of  honor ; he  calls  them  “ the 
pillars  ” of  the  church,  “ the  men  in  high  repute  ” (ot  o-rvXot,  ol  Sokovvtcs, 
Gal.  2 : 6,  9) ; while  he  considered  himself  in  sincere  humility  “ the  least 
of  the  apostles,”  because  he  persecuted  the  church  of  God  (1  Cor.  15  : 9). 

This  statement  of  Paul  makes  it  simply  impossible  and  absurd  to  sup- 
pose (with  Baur,  Schwegler,  Zeller,  and  Renan)  that  John  should  have 
so  contradicted  and  stultified  himself  as  to  attack,  in  the  Apocalypse,  the 
same  Paul  whom  he  had  recognized  as  a brother  during  his  life,  as  a 
false  apostle  and  chief  of  the  synagogue  of  Satan  after  his  death.  Such 
a reckless  and  monstrous  assertion  turns  either  Paul  or  John  into  a liar. 
The  antinomian  and  antichristian  heretics  of  the  Apocalypse  who  plunged 
into  all  sorts  of  moral  and  ceremonial  pollutions  (Apoc.  2 : 14,  15)  would 
have  been  condemned  by  Paul  as  much  as  by  John ; yea,  he  himself,  in 
his  parting  address  to  the  Ephesian  elders,  had  prophetically  forean- 
nounced  and  described  such  teachers  as  “grievous  wolves”  that  would 
after  his  departure  enter  in  among  them  or  rise  from  the  midst  of  them, 
not  sparing  the  flock  (Acts  20  : 29,  30).  On  the  question  of  fornication 
he  was  in  entire  harmony  'with  the  teaching  of  the  Apocalypse  (1  Cor. 
3 : 15,  16 ; 6 : 15-20) ; and  as  to  the  question  of  eating  meat  offered  in 
sacrifice  to  idols  (t«  W8a>Ao3i;rn),  though  he  regarded  it  as  a tiling  indif- 
ferent in  itself,  considering  the  vanity  of  idols,  yet  he  condemned  it 
whenever  it  gave  offence  to  the  weak  consciences  of  the  more  scrupulous 
Jewish  converts  (1  Cor.  8 : 7-13 ; 10  : 23-33 ; Rom.  14  : 2,  21) ; and  this 
was  in  accord  with  the  decree  of  the  Apostolic  Council  (Acts  15  : 29). 

7.  Paul’s  collision  with  Peter  at  Antioch,  Gal.  2 : 11-14.  which  is  made 
the  very  bulwark  of  the  Tubingen  theory,  proves  the  very  reverse.  For  it 
was  not  a difference  in  principle  and  doctrine  ; on  the  contrary,  Paul  ex- 
pressly asserts  that  Peter  at  first  freely  and  habitually  (mark  the  imperfect 
Gal.  2 : 12)  associated  with  the  Gentile  converts  as  brethren  in 
Christ,  but  was  intimidated  by  emissaries  from  the  bigoted  Jewish  con- 
verts in  Jerusalem  and  acted  against  his  better  conviction  which  he  had 
entertained  ever  since  the  vision  at  Joppa  (Acts  10  : 10-16),  and  which 
he  had  so  boldly  confessed  at  the  Council  in  Jerusalem  (Acts  15  : 7-11) 
and  carried  out  in  Antioch.  We  have  here  the  same  impulsive,  impres- 
sible, changeable  disciple,  the  first  to  confess  and  the  first  to  deny  his 
Master,  yet  quickly  returning  to  him  in  bitter  repentance  and  sincere 
humility.  It  is  for  this  inconsistency  of  conduct,  which  Paul  called  by 
the  strong  term  of  dissimulation  or  hypocrisy,  that  he,  in  his  uncompro- 


216 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


mising  zeal  for  the  great  principle  of  Christian  liberty,  reproved  him  pub 
licly  before  the  church.  A public  wrong  had  to  be  publicly  rectified. 
According  to  the  Tiibingen  hypothesis  the  hypocrisy  would  have  been 
in  the  very  opposite  conduct  of  Peter.  The  silent  submission  of  Peter 
on  the  occasion  proves  his  regard  for  his  younger  colleague,  and  speaks 
as  much  to  his  praise  as  his  weakness  to  his  blame.  That  the  alienation 
was  only  temporary  and  did  not  break  up  their  fraternal  relation  is 
apparent  from  the  respectful  though  frank  manner  in  which,  several 
years  after  the  occurrence,  they  allude  to  each  other  as  fellow  apostles, 
comp.  Gal.  1 : 18,  19  ; 2 : 8,  9 ; 1 Cor.  9 : 5 ; 2 Pet.  3 : 15,  16,  and  from 
the  fact  that  Mark  and  Silas  were  connecting  links  between  them  and 
alternately  served  them  both.1 

The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  then  furnishes  the  proper  solution  of  the 
difficulty,  and  essentially  confirms  the  account  of  the  Acts.  It  proves 
the  harmony  as  well  as  the  difference  between  Paul  and  the  older  apos- 
tles. It  explodes  the  hypothesis  that  they  stood  related  to  each  other 
like  the  Marcionites  and  Ebionites  in  the  second  century.  These  were 
the  descendants  of  the  heretics  of  the  apostolic  age,  of  the  “ false  breth- 
ren insidiously  brought  in  ” (\J/e v8d8e\(poi  napclaaKToi,  Gal.  2:4);  while 
the  true  apostles  recognized  and  continued  to  recognize  the  same  grace 
of  God  which  wrought  effectually  through  Peter  for  the  conversion  of 
the  Jews,  and  through  Paul  for  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles.  That  the 
Judaizers  should  have  appealed  to  the  Jewish  apostles,  and  the  anti- 
nomian  Gnostics  to  Paul,  as  tlieir  authority,  is  not  more  surprising  than 
the  appeal  of  the  modern  rationalists  to  Luther  and  the  Reformation. 

We  have  thus  discussed  at  the  outset,  and  at  some  length,  the  fundamen- 
tal difference  of  the  two  standpoints  from  which  the  history  of  the  apos- 
tolic church  is  now  viewed,  and  have  vindicated  our  own  general  position 
in  this  controversy. 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  all  the  obscure  points  have  already  been 
satisfactorily  cleared  up,  or  ever  will  be  solved  beyond  the  possibility 

1 It  is  amusing  to  read  Renan’s  account  of  this  dispute  (St.  Paul , ch.  x.). 
He  sympathizes  rather  with  Peter,  whom  he  calls  a ‘ 1 man  profoundly  kind 
and  upright  and  desiring  peace  above  all  things,”  though  he  admits  him  to 
have  been  amiably  weak  and  inconsistent  on  that  as  on  other  occasions; 
while  he  charges  Paul  with  stubbornness  and  rudeness ; but  what  is  the  most 
important  point,  he  denies  the  Tubingen  exegesis  when  he  says:  “Modern 
critics  who  infer  from  certain  passages  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  that 
the  rupture  between  Peter  and  Paul  was  absolute,  put  themselves  in  contra- 
diction not  only  to  the  Acts,  but  to  other  passages  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians (1  : 18  ; 2:  2).  Fervent  men  pass  their  lives  disputing  together  without 
ever  falling  out.  We  must  not  judge  these  characters  after  the  manner  of 
things  which  take  place  in  our  day  between  people  well-bred  and  susceptible 
in  a point  of  honor.  This  last  word  especially  never  had  much  significance 
with  the  Jews  1 ” 


§ 23.  CHRONOLOGY  OF  TIIE  APOSTOLIC  AGE.  211 


of  dispute.  There  must  be  some  room  left  for  faith  in  that  God  who  has 
revealed  himself  clearly  enough  in  nature  and  in  history  to  strengthen 
our  faith,  and  who  is  concealed  enough  to  try  our  faith.  Certain  inter- 
stellar spaces  will  always  be  vacant  in  the  firmament  of  the  apostolic  age 
that  men  may  gaze  all  the  more  intensely  at  the  bright  stars,  before 
which  the  post-apostolic  books  disappear  like  torches.  A careful  study  of 
the  ecclesiastical  writers  of  the  second  and  third  centuries,  and  especially 
of  the  numerous  Apocryphal  Acts,  Epistles,  and  Apocalypses,  leaves  on 
the  mind  a strong  impression  of  the  immeasurable  superiority  of  the  New 
Testament  in  purity  and  truthfulness,  simplicity  and  majesty ; and  this 
superiority  points  to  a special  agency  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  without  which 
that  book  of  books  is  an  inexplicable  mystery. 


§ 23.  Chronology  of  the  Apostolic  Age. 

See  the  works  quoted  in  § 20,  pp.  193, 194,  especially  Wieseler.  Comp,  also 
Hackett  on  Acts , pp.  22  to  30  (third  ed.). 

The  chronology  of  the  apostolic  age  is  partly  certain,  at  least 
within  a few  years,  partly  conjectural:  certain  as  to  the  princi- 
pal events  from  a.d.  30  to  TO,  conjectural  as  to  intervening 
points  and  the  last  thirty  years  of  the  first  century.  The  sources 
are  the  Kew  Testament  (especially  the  Acts  and  the  Pauline 
Epistles),  Josephus,  and  the  Roman  historians.  Josephus  (b.  37, 
d.  103)  is  especially  valuable  here,  as  he  wrote  the  Jewish  his- 
tory down  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

The  following  dates  are  more  or  less  certain  and  accepted  by 
most  historians : 

1.  The  founding  of  the  Christian  Church  on  the  feast  of 
Pentecost  in  May  a.d.  30.  This  is  on  the  assumption  that 
Christ  was  born  b.c.  4 or  5,  and  was  crucified  in  April  a.d.  30,  at 
an  age  of  thirty-three. 

2.  The  death  of  King  Herod  Agrippa  I.  a.d.  44  (according 
to  Josephus).  This  settles  the  date  of  the  preceding  martyr- 
dom of  James  the  elder,  Peter’s  imprisonment  and  release 
(Acts  12  : 2,  23). 

3.  The  Apostolic  Council  in  Jerusalem,  a.d.  50  (Acts  15 : 1 
sqq. ; Gal.  2 : 1-10).  This  date  is  ascertained  by  reckoning  back- 
wards to  Paul’s  conversion,  and  forward  to  the  Caesarean  cap* 


218 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


tivity.  Paul  was  probably  converted  in  37,  and  “fourteen 
years  ” elapsed  from  that  event  to  the  Council.  But  chronolo- 
gists  differ  on  the  year  of  Paul’s  conversion,  between  31  and  40.* 

4.  The  dates  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Galatians,  Corinthians, 
and  Romans,  between  50  and  58.  The  date  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  can  be  fixed  almost  to  the  month  from  its  own  in- 
dications combined  with  the  statements  of  the  Acts.  It  was 
written  before  the  apostle  had  been  in  Rome,  but  when  he  was 
on  the  point  of  departure  for  Jerusalem  and  Rome  on  the  way 
to  Spain,1 2 3  after  having  finished  his  collections  in  Macedonia  and 
Achaia  for  the  poor  brethren  in  Judaea ; 3 and  he  sent  the  epis- 
tle through  Pliebe,  a deaconess  of  the  congregation  in  the  east- 
ern port  of  Corinth,  where  he  was  at  that  time.4  These  indica- 
tions point  clearly  to  the  spring  of  the  year  58,  for  in  that  year 
he  was  taken  prisoner  in  Jerusalem  and  carried  to  Caesarea. 

5.  Paul’s  captivity  in  Caesarea,  a.d.  58  to  60,  during  the  pro- 
curatorship  of  Felix  and  Festus,  who  changed  places  in  60  or 
61,  probably  in  60.  This  important  date  we  can  ascertain  by 
combination  from  several  passages  in  Josephus,  and  Tacitus.5 
It  enables  us  at  the  same  time,  by  reckoning  backward,  to  fix 
some  preceding  events  in  the  life  of  the  apostle. 

6.  Paul’s  first  captivity  in  Rome,  a.d.  61  to  63.  This  follows 
from  the  former  date  in  connection  with  the  statement  in  Acts 
28 : 30. 

7.  The  Epistles  of  the  Roman  captivity,  Philippians,  Ephe- 
sians, Colossians,  and  Philemon,  a.d.  61-63. 

1 See  Hist.  Apost.  Ch.  § 63,  p.  235,  and  § 67,  p.  265.  The  allusion  to  the 
governorship  of  Aretas  in  Damascus,  2 Cor.  11  : 32,  33,  furnishes  no  certain 
date,  owing  to  the  defects  of  our  knowledge  of  that  period ; but  other  indica- 
tions combined  lead  to  the  year  37.  Wieseler  puts  Paul’s  conversion  in  the 
year  40,  but  this  follows  from  his  erroneous  view  of  the  journey  mentioned  in 
Gal.  2:1,  which  he  identifies  with  Paul’s  fourth  journey  to  Jerusalem  in  54, 
instead  of  his  third  journey  to  the  Council  four  years  earlier. 

2 Rom.  1 : 13,  15,  22 ; 15  : 23-28 ; comp.  Acts  19  : 21 ; 20:16;  23  : 11 ; 
1 Cor.  16  : 3. 

s Rom.  15  : 25-27  ; 1 Cor.  16:1,  2 ; 2 Cor.  chs.  8 and  9 ; Acts  24  : 17. 

4 Rom.  16  : 1,  23  ; comp.  Acts  19  : 22 ; 2 Tim.  4 : 20  ; 1 Cor.  1 : 14. 

6 See  Wieseler,  1.  c.,  pp.  67  sqq. 


§ 23.  CHRONOLOGY  OF  TIIE  APOSTOLIC  AGE.  219 

8.  The  Neronian  persecution,  a.d.  64  (the  tenth  year  of  Nero, 
according  to  Tacitus).  The  martyrdom  of  Paul  and  Peter 
occurred  either  then,  or  (according  to  tradition)  a few  years 
later.  The  question  depends  on  the  second  Roman  captivity  of 
Paul. 

9.  The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus,  a.d.  70  (according 
to  Josephus  and  Tacitus). 

10.  The  death  of  John  after  the  accession  of  Trajan,  a.d.  98 
(according  to  general  ecclesiastical  tradition). 

The  dates  of  the  Synoptical  Gospels,  the  Acts,  the  Pastoral 
Epistles,  the  Hebrews,  and  the  Epistles  of  Peter,  James,  and 
Jude  cannot  be  accurately  ascertained  except  that  they  were 
composed  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  mostly  between 
60  and  70.  The  writings  of  John  were  written  after  that  date 
and  towards  the  close  of  the  first  century,  except  the  Apocalypse, 
which  some  of  the  best  scholars,  from  internal  indications,  assign 
to  the  year  68  or  69,  between  the  death  of  Nero  and  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem. 

The  details  are  given  in  the  following  table : 


Chronological  Table  of  the  Apostolic  Age. 


A.D. 

SCRIPTURE  HISTORY. 

EVENTS  IN  PALESTINE. 

events  in  the  roman 
empire. 

A.D. 

B.C.  5 
or  4 

Birth  of  Christ 

Death  of  Herod  I.,  or  the 
Great  (a.u.  750.  orB.c.  4). 

Archelaus  in  Judaea,  Sa- 
maria, and  Idumea;  He- 
rod Antipas  in  Galilee 
and  Peraea,  and  Philip 
in  Auranitis,  Trachonitis, 
Paneas,  and  Batanaea. 

Archelaus  deposed,  and 
Judaea  made  a Roman 
province. 

Augustus  Emperor  of 
Rome,  B.c.  27-a.d.  14. 

6 

A.D.  8 

His  visit  to  the  Temple  at 
twelve  yearB  of  age 

Cyrenius  (Quirinius),  Gov- 
ernor of  Syria  (for  the 
second  time).  The  regis- 
tration, or ‘•taxing.”  Acts 
5:37. 

Revolt  of  “Judas  of  Gali- 
lee.” 

Coponius  Procurator  of  Ju- 
daea. 

Marcus  Ambivtus  Procu- 
rator  

9 

Tiberius  colleague  of 
Augustus 

12 

Annius  Rufus  Procurator 
(about) 

13 

220 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100 


27 

27-30 


37 


40 


44 


SOBIPTUBE  HISTORY. 


Christ’s  Baptism. 

His  three  years’  ministry. 

His  Crucifixion,  Resurrec- 
tion (April),  and  Ascen- 
sion (May ). 

Descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
at  Pentecost.  Birthday 
of  the  Church  (May). 
Acts,  ch.  2. 

Martyrdom  of  Stephen. 
Acts,  ch.  7. 

Peter  and  John  in  Sama- 
ria. Acts,  ch.  8. 

Conversion  of  Saul.  Acts, 
ch.  9,  comp.  22  and  26, 
and  Gal.  1:16;  1 Cor. 
15:8. 

Saul’s  escape  from  Damas- 
cus, and  first  visit  to 
Jerusalem  (after  his 
conversion).  Gal.  1 : 18. 

Admission  of  Cornelius 
into  the  Church.  Acts, 
chs.  10  and  11. 

Persecution  of  the 
Church  in  Jerusalem. 
James  the  Elder,  the 
son  of  Zebedee,  behead- 
ed. Peter  imprisoned 
and  delivered.  He 
leaves  Palestine.  Acts 
12 : 2-23. 


EVENTS  IN  PALESTINE. 


Valerius  Gbattjs  Procura- 
tor  


Pontius  Pilate  Procura- 
tor from  a.d.  26 

Caiaphas  high-priest  from 
A.D.  25. 


Marcellus  Procurator 

Pilate  sent  to  Rome  by  the 

Prefect  of  Syria 

Mabvllus  appointed  Hip- 
parch. 

Herod  Agrippa  I.,  King  of 
of  Judaea  and  Samaria. . . 


EVENTS  IN  THE  ROMAN 
EMPIRE. 


Augustus  dies.  Tiberius 
sole  Emperor  (14-37) . 


Caligula  Emperor  (37- 

41) 


Philo  at  Rome. 


Herod  Agrippa  I.  dies  at 


Claudius  Emperor  (41- 
54) 


a.d 


26 


41 


44 


45 


Paul’s  second  visit  to  Je- 
rusalem, with  alms  from 
the  church  at  Antioch. 
Acts  11 : 30. 

Paul  is  set  apart  as  an 
apostle.  Acts  13  : 2. 


60  P a u l’s  first  missionary 

journey  with  Barnabas 
and  Mark,  Cyprus,  Pisi- 
dia,  Lystra,  Derbe.  Re- 
turn to  Antioch.  Acts 
chs.  13  and  14. 

The  Epistle  of  James 
(variously  dated  from  44 
to  62). 

The  apostolic  council  of 
Jerusalem.  Conflict  be- 
tween Jewish  and  Gen- 
tile Christianity.  Paul’s 
third  visit  to  Jerusalem 
with  Barnabas  and  Ti- 
tus. Peaceful  adjust- 
ment of  the  question  of 
circumcision.  Acts,  ch. 
15  and  Gal.  2 : 1-10. 

Temporary  collision  with 
Peter  and  Barnabas  at 
Antioch.  Gal.  2:11-14. 

51  Paul  sets  out  on  his  second 
missionary  journey  from 
Antioch  to  Asia  M'nor 
(Cilicia,  Lycaonia,Gala- 


Conquest  of  Britain,  43- 
61. 


Cuspius  Fadus  Procurator 
of  Judsea. 

Tiberius  Alexander  Pro- 
curator  

Ventidius  Cumanus  Pro- 
curator  


46 

47 


§ 23.  CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE.  221 


52-53 

51 

56 

57 

58 

60 

61 

61-63 

62 

63 

64 

64-67 

60-70 


SCRIPTURK  HISTORY. 


tia,  Troas)  and  Greece 
(Philippi,  Thessalonica, 
Beroea,  Athens,  Cor- 
inth). The  Christiani- 
zation of  Europe.  Acts, 
15  : 36  to  18  : 22. 

Paul  at  Corinth  a year 
and  a half.  Writes  First 
and  Second  Epistles  to 
the  Thessalonians  from 
Corinth. 

Paul’s  fourth  visit  to  Je- 
rusalem (spring).  Short 
stay  at  Antioch.  En- 
ters (autumn,  54)  on  his 
third  missionary  jour- 
ney, occupying  about 
four  years.  Paul  at 
Ephesus,  54  to  57.  Acts, 
ch.  19. 

Paul  writes  to  the  Gala- 
tians (?)  from  Ephesus, 
or  from  some  part  of 
Greece  on  his  journey 
to  Corinth  (57).  Acts, 
ch.  20. 

Paul  writes  First  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians  from 
Ephesus;  starts  for 
Macedonia  and  writes 
Secojid  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  from  Mace- 
donia. 

Epistle  to  the  Romans 
from  Corinth,  where  he 
spent  three  months. 

He  visits  (the  fifth  time) 
Jerusalem ; is  appre- 
hended, brought  before 
Felix,  and  imprisoned 
at  Caesarea  for  two  years. 
Acts,  21 : 17  to  26 : 32. 

Paul  appears  before  Fes- 
tus,  appeals  to  Caesar,  is 
sent  to  Italy  (in  au- 
tumn). Shipwreck  at 
Mai  hi.  Acts,  chs.  27 
and  28. 

Arrives  a prisoner  at 
Rome  (in  spring). 

Paul  writes  to  the  Philip- 
pians , Ephesians , Colos- 
sians,  Philemon , from 
his  prison  in  Rome. 

Martyrdom  of  James,  the 
Lord’s  brother,  at  Jeru- 
salem (according  to  Jo- 
sephus, or  69  according 
to  Hegesippus). 

Paul  is  supposed  to  have 
been  released.  Acts,  28  : 
30. 

Epistle  to  the  Hebrews , 
written  from  Italy  after 
the  release  of  Timothy 
(ch.  13:23). 

First  Epistle  of  Peter. 

Epistle  of  Jude  (?). 

Second  Epistle  of  Peter  (?) 


The  Synoptical  Gospels , 
and  Acts. 


EVENTS  IN  PALESTINE. 


EVENTS  IN  THE  HOMAN 
EMPIRE. 


Antonitjs  Felix  Procura 
tor 


The  Tetrarchy  of  Trachoni- 
tis  given  to  Herod  Agrip- 
pa  II.  (the  last  of  the  He- 
rodian  family). 


Revolt  of  the  Sicarii,  head- 
ed by  an  Egyptian  (Acts, 
21 : 38) 


Decree  of  Claudius  ban- 
ishing the  Jews  from 
Rome 


Nero  Emperor  (54-68). . . 


61 


55 


Porcius  Festus  Procurator 


Embassy  from  Jerusalem  to 
Rome  respecting  the  wall. 


War  with  Boadicea  in  Bri- 
tain   

Apollonius  of  Tyana  at 
the  Olympic  games. 


61 


Josephus  at  Rome. 


Albintts  Procurator. 


Gessiub  Florus  Procura- 
tor. 


Beginning  of  the  great  war 
between  the  Romans  and 
Jews 


Great  fire  at  Rome  (in 
July) ; first  imperial 
persecution  of  the  Chris- 
tians (martyrdom  of 

Peter  and  Paul) 

Seneca  and  Lucan  put  to 
death  by  Nero 


63 


222 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


A.D. 

SCRIPTURE  HISTORY. 

EVERTS  IR  PALESTINE. 

EVENTS  IN  THE  ROHAN 
EMPIRE. 

A.D. 

64-67 

Paul  visits  Crete  and  Ma- 

Vespasian  General  in  Pa- 

cedonia,and  writes  First 
Epistle  to  Timothy , and 

lestine 

67 

Epistle  to  Titus  C?).1 

Paul  writes  Second  Epis- 

tie  to  Timothy  (?). 

S5-67 

Paul’s  and  Peter’s  martyr- 

dom in  Rome  (?). 

68-69 

The  Revelation  of  John  (?) 

Galba  Emperor 

68 

Oxho  and  Vitbllius  Em- 

perors  

69 

Vespasian  Emperor 

69 

Destruction  of  Jerusalem  by 
Titus 

70 

(Josephus  released.) 

Coliseum  begun 

Destruction  of  Pompeii 

76 

and  Herculaneum 

79 

80-90 

John  writes  his  Gospel 
and  Epistles  (?). 

Titus  Emperor 

79 

Domitian  Emperor 

91 

95 

John  writes  the  Revela- 

Persecution of  Christians. 

95 

tion  (?). 

Nerva  Emperor 

96 

98-100 

Death  of  Apollonius 

97 

Death  of  John. 

Trajan  Emperor 

98 

1 Those  who  deny  a second  imprisonment  of  Paul  assign  these  Epistles  to  the  period  of  Paul’s 
residence  in  Ephesus,  A.D.  64-57,  and  2 Timothy  to  a.d.  63  or  64. 


224 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


CHAPTER  IY. 

ST.  PETER  AND  THE  CONVERSION  OF  THE  JEWS 

§ 24.  The  Miracle  of  Pentecost  cmd  the  Birthday  of  the 
Christian  Church,  a.d.  30. 


Koi  4ir\'fi<rfrr]<Tav  irayr  €s  Tryev/xaros  ay  to  v,  ical  ¥)pl-avro  \a\e7v  eripat  S 
yXuxrcraiS)  KaSai  s rb  iryev/xa  ibibov  aTroQ&tyyea&ai  avrois. — Acts  2 : 4. 

“The  first  Pentecost  which  the  disciples  celebrated  after  the  ascension  of 
our  Saviour,  is,  next  to  the  appearance  of  the  Son  of  God  on  earth,  the  most 
significant  event.  It  is  the  starting-point  of  the  apostolic  church  and  of  that 
new  spiritual  life  in  humanity  which  proceeded  from  Him,  and  which  since 
has  been  spreading  and  working,  and  will  continue  to  work  until  the  whole 
humanity  is  transformed  into  the  image  of  Christ.” — Neandek  ( Geschichte 
der  Pflanzung  und  Leitung  dev  christlichen  Kirche  durch  die  Apostel. , I.  3,  4). 


Literature. 

I.  Sources  : Acts  2 : 1-47.  Comp.  1 Cor.  chs.  12  and  14.  See  Commen- 

taries on  the  Acts  by  Olshausen,  De  Wette,  Meter,  Lechler, 
Hackett,  Alexander,  Gloag,  Alford,  Wordsworth,  Plumptre, 
Jacobson,  Howson  and  Spence,  etc.,  and  on  the  Corinthians  by 
Billroth,  Kling,  Stanley,  Heinrici,  Edwards,  Godet,  Ellicott. 

II.  Special  treatises  on  the  Pentecostal  Miracle  and  the  Gift  of  Tongues 
(glossolalia)  by  Herder  {Die  Gabe  der  Sprachen,  Riga,  1794) 
Hase  (in  Winer’s  “Zeitschrift  fur  wissenschaftl.  Theol.”  1827), 
Bleek  in  “Studien  und  Kritiken”  for  1829  and  1830),  Baur  in  the 
“Tiibinger  Zeitschrift  fiir  Theol.”  for  1830  and  1831,  and  in  the 
“ Studien  und  Krit.”  1838),  Schneceenburger  (in  his  Beitrage  zur 
Einleitung  in  das  K T.  1832),  Baumlein  (1834),  Dav.  Schulz  (1836), 
Zinsler  (1847),  Zeller  ( Acts  of  the  Apostles , I.  171,  of  the  E.  trans- 
lation by  J.  Dare),  Bohm  (Irvingite,  Reden  mit  Zungen  und  Weis - 
sagen , Berlin,  1848),  Rossteuscher  (Irvingite,  Gabe  der  Sprachen  im 
apost.  Zeitalter , Marburg,  1855),  Ad.  Hilgenfeld  ( Glossolalie , Leipz. 
1850),  Mates  {Glossolalie  des  apost.  Zeitalter s,  1855),  Wleseler  (in 


§ 24.  THE  MIRACLE  OF  PENTECOST,  A.D.  30.  225 


“Stud.  u.  Krit.”  1838  and  1860),  Sckenkel  (art.  Zungenreden  in  hie 
“ Bibel-Lex.”  V.  732),  Van  Hengel  ( Be  gave  der  talen , Leiden,  1864), 
Plumptre  (art.  Gift  of  Tongues  in  Smith’s  “B.  D.”  IV.  3305,  Am. 
ed.),  Delitzsch  (art.  Pfingsten  in  Riehm’s  “H.  B.  A.”  1880,  p. 
1184) ; K.  Schmidt  (in  Herzog,  2d  ed.,  xvii.,  570  sqq.). 

Comp,  also  Neander  (I.  1),  Lange  (II.  13),  Ewald  (VI.  106), 
Thiersch  (p.  65,  3d  ed.),  Schaff  (191  and  469),  Farrar  {St.  Pault 
ch.  V.  vol.  I.  83). 

The  ascension  of  Christ  to  heaven  was  followed  ten  days 
afterwards  by  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  earth  and 
the  birth  of  the  Christian  Church.  The  Pentecostal  event  was 
the  necessary  result  of  the  Passover  event.  It  could  never  have 
taken  place  without  the  preceding  resurrection  and  ascension. 
It  was  the  first  act  of  the  mediatorial  reign  of  the  exalted  Re- 
deemer in  heaven,  and  the  beginning  of  an  unbroken  series  of 
manifestations  in  fulfilment  of  his  promise  to  be  with  his  people 
“ alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.”  For  his  ascension  was 
only  a withdrawal  of  his  visible  local  presence,  and  the  begin- 
ning of  his  spiritual  omnipresence  in  the  church  which  is  u his 
body,  the  fulness  of  him  that  filleth  all  in  all.”  The  Easter 
miracle  and  the  Pentecostal  miracle  are  continued  and  verified 
by  the  daily  moral  miracles  of  regeneration  and  sanctification 
throughout  Christendom. 

We  have  but  one  authentic  account  of  that  epoch-making 
event,  in  the  second  chapter  of  Acts,  but  in  the  parting  addresses 
of  our  Lord  to  his  disciples  the  promise  of  the  Paraclete  who 
should  lead  them  into  the  whole  truth  is  very  prominent,1  and 
the  entire  history  of  the  apostolic  church  is  illuminated  and 
heated  by  the  Pentecostal  fire.2 

Pentecost,  i.  e.  the  fiftieth  day  after  the  Passover-Sabbath,3 

1 John  14 : 16,  26  ; 15  : 26  ; 16:7.  The  preparatory  communication  of  the 
Spirit  is  related  in  John  20  : 22. 

* Comp,  especially  the  classical  chapters  on  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  1 Cor. 
i2,  13,  and  14,  and  Rom.  12. 

* The  Greek  name  rj  TrfvnjKotrr-h  (vn*pa)  is  used  (like  quinquagesima)  as  a 
substantive,  Tob.  2 : 1 ; 2 Macc.  12  : 32 ; Acts  2 ; 1 ; 20  : 16 ; 1 Cor.  16  : 3,  and 
by  Josephus,  Ant.  III.  10, 6,  etc.  It  survives  not  only  in  all  the  Romanic  lan- 
guages, but  also  in  the  German  Pfingsten.  The  English  Whit- Sun  day  is 


226 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


was  a feast  of  joy  and  gladness,  in  the  loveliest  season  of  the 
year,  and  attracted  a very  large  number  of  visitors  to  Jerusalem 
from  foreign  lands.1  It  was  one  of  the  three  great  annual  festi- 
vals of  the  Jews  in  which  all  the  males  were  required  to  appear 
before  the  Lord.  Passover  was  the  first,  and  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles  the  third.  Pentecost  lasted  one  day,  but  the  for- 
eign Jews,  after  the  period  of  the  captivity,  prolonged  it  to 
two  days.  It  was  the  “ feast  of  harvest,”  or  “ of  the  first 
fruits,”  and  also  (according  to  rabbinical  tradition)  the  anniver- 
sary celebration  of  the  Sinaitic  legislation,  which  is  supposed  to 
have  taken  place  on  the  fiftieth  day  after  the  Exodus  from  the 
land  of  bondage.2 

This  festival  was  admirably  adapted  for  the  opening  event  in 

usually  derived  from  the  white  garments  of  the  candidates  for  baptism  worn 
on  that  day  (hence  Dominica  alba) ; others  connect  it  with  wit,  the  gift  of 
wisdom  from  above.  The  Hebrew  names  of  the  festival  are  ‘V'Sjpn  an,  ecpr^i 
be^ia/mov,  the  feast  of  harvest  (Ex.  23  : 16),  Q-p,  ri/iepa  twv  viwv,  day 

of  the  first  fruits  (Num.  28 : 26),  nijaiTS  an,  koprh  efibop.dSuvf  ayia  enrh 
kffionaSwv,  festival  of  (seven)  weeks , as  the  harvest  continued  for  seven  weeks 
(Deut.  16  : 9,  10  ; Lev.  23  : 15  ; Tob.  2 : 1).  It  began  directly  after  the  Passo- 
ver with  the  offering  of  the  first  sheaf  of  the  barley-harvest,  and  ended  at 
Pentecost  with  the  offering  of  the  first  two  loaves  from  the  wheat-harvest. 

1 Josephus  speaks  of  “many  tens  of  thousands  being  gathered  together 
about  the  temple”  on  Pentecost,  Ant.  xiv.  13,  4 ; comp.  xvii.  10,  2 ; Bell  Jud. 
II.  3,  1.  The  Passover,  of  course,  was  more  numerously  attended  by  Jews 
from  Palestine  ; but  distant  foreigners  were  often  prevented  by  the  dangers 
of  travel  in  the  early  spring.  Paul  twice  went  to  Jerusalem  on  Pentecost, 
Acts  18  : 21  ; 20  : 16.  Many  Passover  pilgrims  would  naturally  remain  till  the 
second  festival. 

2 Hence  called  the  feast  of  the  joy  of  the  Law  (rnisn  FinEE).  The  date  of 
the  Sinaitic  legislation  is  based  on  a comparison  of  Ex.  12  : 2 with  19  : 1 
(comp,  m y Hist.  of  the  Ap.  Gh.,  p.  192,  note  5).  The  legislation  on  Pente- 
cost, Deut.  16  : 9-12,  represents  it  as  a feast  of  rejoicing,  and  concludes  with 
a reference  to  the  bondage  in  Egypt  and  the  commandments  of  Jehovah. 
Otherwise  there  is  no  allusion  in  the  Bible,  nor  in  Philo  nor  Josephus,  to  the 
historical  significance  of  Pentecost.  But  there  was  a Jewish  custom  which 
Schottgen  {Ear.  Heb.  in  Act.  2:1)  traces  to  apostolic  times,  of  spending  the 
night  before  Pentecost  in  thanksgiving  to  God  for  the  gift  of  the  law.  In  the 
present  Jewish  observance  the  commemoration  of  the  Sinaitic  legislation  is 
made  prominent.  Some  Jews  “adorn  their  houses  with  flowers  and  wear 
wreaths  on  their  heads,  with  the  declared  purpose  of  testifying  their  joy  in  the 
possession  of  the  Law.” 


§ 24.  THE  MIRACLE  OF  PENTECOST,  A.D.  30.  227 


the  history  of  the  apostolic  church.  It  pointed  typically  to  the 
first  Christian  harvest,  and  the  establishment  of  the  new  theo- 
cracy in  Christ ; as  the  sacrifice  of  the  paschal  lamb  and  the 
exodus  from  Egypt  foreshadowed  the  redemption  of  the  world 
by  the  crucifixion  of  the  Lamb  of  God.  On  no  other  day  could 
the  effusion  of  the  Spirit  of  the  exalted  Redeemer  produce  such 
rich  results  and  become  at  once  so  widely  known.  We  may 
trace  to  this  day  not  only  the  origin  of  the  mother  church  at 
Jerusalem,  but  also  the  conversion  of  visitors  from  other  cities, 
as  Damascus,  Antioch,  Alexandria,  and  Rome,  who  on  their  re- 
turn would  carry  the  glad  tidings  to  their  distant  homes.  For 
the  strangers  enumerated  by  Luke  as  witnesses  of  the  great 
event,  represented  nearly  all  the  countries  in  which  Christianity 
was  planted  by  the  labors  of  the  apostles.1 

The  Pentecost  in  the  year  of  the  Resurrection  was  the  last 
Jewish  (i.  e.  typical)  and  the  first  Christian  Pentecost.  It  be- 
came the  spiritual  harvest  feast  of  redemption  from  sin,  and  the 
birthday  of  the  visible  kingdom  of  Christ  on  earth.  It  marks 
the  beginning  of  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit,  the  third  era  in 
the  history  of  the  revelation  of  the  triune  God.  On  this  day 
the  Holy  Spirit,  who  had  hitherto  wrought  only  sporadically 
and  transiently,  took  up  his  permanent  abode  in  mankind  as  the 
Spirit  of  truth  and  holiness,  with  the  fulness  of  saving  grace,  to 
apply  that  grace  thenceforth  to  believers,  and  to  reveal  and  glorify 
Christ  in  their  hearts,  as  Christ  had  revealed  and  glorified  the 
Father. 

While  the  apostles  and  disciples,  about  one  hundred  and 
twenty  (ten  times  twelve)  in  number,  no  doubt  mostly  Galilse- 
ans,2  were  assembled  before  the  morning  devotions  of  the  festal 

1 The  list  of  nations,  Acts  2 : 8-11,  gives  a bird’s  eye  view  of  the  Roman 
empire  from  the  East  and  North  southward  and  westward  as  far  as  Rome,  and 
then  again  eastward  to  Arabia.  Cyprus  and  Greece  are  omitted.  There  were 
Christians  in  Damascus  before  the  conversion  of  Paul  (9:2),  and  a large  con- 
gregation at  Rome  long  before  he  wrote  his  Epistle  (Rom.  1 : 8). 

2 Acts  1 : 15 ; 2:7.  Ten  times  the  number  of  tribes  of  Israel.  These  were, 
however,  not  all  the  disciples ; Paul  mentions  five  hundred  brethren  to  whom 
the  risen  Lord  appeared  at  once,  1 Cor.  15  : 6. 


228 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


day,  and  were  waiting  in  prayer  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  prom- 
ise, the  exalted  Saviour  sent  from  his  heavenly  throne  the  Holy 
Spirit  upon  them,  and  founded  his  church  upon  earth.  The 
Sinaitic  legislation  was  accompanied  by  “thunder  and  light- 
ning, and  a thick  cloud  upon  the  mount,  and  the  voice  of  the 
trumpet  exceeding  loud,  and  all  the  people  that  was  in  the  camp 
trembled.”  1 2 The  church  of  the  new  covenant  was  ushered  into 
existence  with  startling  signs  which  filled  the  spectators  with 
wonder  and  fear.  It  is  quite  natural,  as  Neander  remarks,  that 
“the  greatest  miracle  in  the  inner  life  of  mankind  should  have 
been  accompanied  by  extraordinary  outward  phenomena  as  sen- 
sible indications  of  its  presence.”  A supernatural  sound  resem- 
bling that  of  a rushing  mighty  wind,3  came  down  from  heaven 
and  filled  the  whole  house  in  which  they  were  assembled  ; and 
tongues  like  flames  of  fire,  distributed  themselves  among  them, 
alighting  for  a while  on  each  head.3  It  is  not  said  that  these 
phenomena  were  really  wind  and  fire,  they  are  only  compared 
to  these  elements,4  as  the  form  which  the  Holy  Spirit  assumed 
at  the  baptism  of  Christ  is  compared  to  a dove.5  The  tongues 
of  flame  were  gleaming,  but  neither  burning  nor  consuming ; 
they  appeared  and  disappeared  like  electric  sparks  or  meteoric 
flashes.  But  these  audible  and  visible  signs  were  appropriate 

1 Exod.  19:16;  comp.  Hebr.  12 : 18,  19. 

2 $Xos  &(r7rep  (pepo/xfvijs  irvorjs  fiialas,  ein  Oetose  wie  von  einem  ddhinfdhrenden 
hefligen  Wchen  (Meyer).  The  term  <pepop.evi\,  borne  on,  is  the  same  which 
Peter  uses  of  the  inspiration  of  the  prophets,  2 Pet.  1 : 21. 

3 Siapcpi^npcvat  yXvxraai  irvpis,  2 : 3,  are  not  parted  or  “ cloven”  tongues 
(E.  V. ) — resembling  the  fork-like  shape  of  the  episcopal  mitre — but  distributed 
tongues,  spreading  from  one  to  another.  This  is  the  meaning  of  5 lapepiCeir  in 
ver.  45  ; Luke  22  : 17  ; 23  : 34 ; John  19  : 24  ; Matt.  27  : 35.  The  distributive 
idea  explains  the  change  of  number  in  ver.  3,  yXwaaou — i/cAdio-cv,  i.  e.,  one 
tongue  sat  on  each  disciple. 

4 Hence  Vxnrtp  and  waei.  John  Lightfoot : “ Sonus  ventus  vehementis , sed 
absque  vento  ; sic  etiam  lingua  ignece,  sed  absque  igne .” 

5 Luke  3 : 22  (is  TrepKrrepdv) ; Matt.  3:16  (i<r cl) ; Mark  1 : 10  ; John  1 : 32. 
The  Rabbinical  comment  on  Gen.  1 : 2 makes  the  same  comparison,  that  “ the 
Spirit  of  God  moved  on  the  face  of  the  waters  like  a dove”  and  Milton  sings 
(Farad.  Lost , i.  20) : 

“With  mighty  wings  outspread 
Dove-like  sat’st  brooding  on  the  vast  abyss.” 


24.  THE  MIRACLE  OF  PENTECOST,  A.D.  30.  229 


symbols  of  the  purifying,  enlightening,  and  quickening  power 
of  the  Divine  Spirit,  and  announced  a new  spiritual  creation. 
The  form  of  tongues  referred  to  the  glossolalia,  and  the  apostolic 
eloquence  as  a gift  of  inspiration. 

“ And  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit.”  This 
is  the  real  inward  miracle,  the  main  fact,  the  central  idea  of  the 
Pentecostal  narrative.  To  the  apostles  it  was  their  baptism, 
confirmation,  and  ordination,  all  in  one,  for  they  received  no 
other.1  To  them  it  was  the  great  inspiration  which  enabled 
them  hereafter  to  be  authoritative  teachers  of  the  gospel  by 
tongue  and  pen.  Not  that  it  superseded  subsequent  growth  in 
knowledge,  or  special  revelations  on  particular  points  (as  Peter 
received  at  Joppa,  and  Paul  on  several  occasions) ; but  they  were 
endowed  with  such  an  understanding  of  Christ’s  words  and  plan 
of  salvation  as  they  never  had  before.  What  was  dark  and  mys- 
terious became  now  clear  and  full  of  meaning  to  them.  The 
Spirit  revealed  to  them  the  person  and  work  of  the  Redeemer 
in  the  light  of  his  resurrection  and  exaltation,  and  took  full 
possession  of  their  mind  and  heart.  They  were  raised,  as  it 
wrere,  to  the  mount  of  transfiguration,  and  saw  Moses  and  Elijah 
and  Jesus  above  them,  face  to  face,  swimming  in  heavenly 
light.  They  had  now  but  one  desire  to  gratify,  but  one  object 
to  live  for,  namely,  to  be  witnesses  of  Christ  and  instruments  of 
the  salvation  of  their  fellow-men,  that  they  too  might  become 
partakers  of  their  “ inheritance  incorruptible,  and  undefiled,  and 
that  fadeth  not  away,  reserved  in  heaven.”  3 

But  the  communication  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  not  confined 
to  the  Twelve.  It  extended  to  the  brethren  of  the  Lord,  the 
mother  of  Jesus,  the  pious  women  who  had  attended  his  minis- 
try, and  the  whole  brotherhood  of  a hundred  and  twenty  souls 
who  were  assembled  in  that  chamber.3  They  were  “ all  ” filled 
with  the  Spirit,  and  all  spoke  with  tongues ; 4 and  Peter  saw  in 

1 They  were  baptized  with  water  by  John ; but  Christian  baptism  was  first 
administered  by  them  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  Christ  himself  did  not  bap- 
tize, John  4 : 2. 

3 1 Pet.  1 : 3,  4. 

2 Comp.  Acts  1 : 13,  14. 

4 Acts  2:3:  “ it  (a  tongue  of  fire)  sat  upon  each  of  them.” 


230 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


the  event  the  promised  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  upon  “all 
flesh,”  sons  and  daughters,  young  men  and  old  men,  servants 
and  handmaidens.1  It  is  characteristic  that  in  this  spring  season 
of  the  church  the  women  were  sitting  with  the  men,  not  in  a 
separate  court  as  in  the  temple,  nor  divided  by  a partition  as  in 
the  synagogue  and  the  decayed  churches  of  the  East  to  this  day, 
but  in  the  same  room  as  equal  sharers  in  the  spiritual  blessings. 
The  beginning  was  a prophetic  anticipation  of  the  end,  and  a 
manifestation  of  the  universal  priesthood  and  brotherhood  of 
believers  in  Christ,  in  whom  all  are  one,  whether  Jew  or  Greek, 
bond  or  free,  male  or  female.2 

This  new  spiritual  life,  illuminated,  controlled,  and  directed 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  manifested  itself  first  in  the  speaking  with 
tongues  towards  God,  and  then  in  the  prophetic  testimony  to- 
wards the  people.  The  former  consisted  of  rapturous  prayers 
and  anthems  of  praise,  the  latter  of  sober  teaching  and  exhorta- 
tion. From  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration  the  disciples,  like 
their  Master,  descended  to  the  valley  below  to  heal  the  sick  and 
to  call  sinners  to  repentance. 

The  mysterious  gift  of  tongues,  or  glossolalia,  appears  here 
for  the  first  time,  but  became,  with  other  extraordinary  gifts  of 
the  Spirit,  a frequent  phenomenon  in  the  apostolic  churches, 
especially  at  Corinth,  and  is  fully  described  by  Paul.  The  dis- 
tribution of  the  flaming  tongues  to  each  of  the  disciples  caused 
the  speaking  with  tongues.  A new  experience  expresses  itself 
always  in  appropriate  language.  The  supernatural  experience 
of  the  disciples  broke  through  the  confines  of  ordinary  speech 
and  burst  out  in  ecstatic  language  of  praise  and  thanksgiving  to 
God  for  the  great  works  he  did  among  them.8  It  was  the  Spirit 
himself  who  gave  them  utterance  and  played  on  their  tongues, 
as  on  new  tuned  harps,  unearthly  melodies  of  praise.  The  glos- 
solalia was  here,  as  in  all  cases  where  it  is  mentioned,  an  act  of 
worship  and  adoration,  not  an  act  of  teaching  and  instruction, 

1 Acts  2 : 3,  4,  17,  18. 

5 Gal.  3 : 28. 

3 rck  /i€ya\e?a  rod  &cov,  Acta  2 : 11 ; comp,  the  same  term  Luke  1 : 69,  and 
the  ntya\vy€iv  t bv  Acts  10  : 46. 


§ 24.  TIIE  MIRACLE  OF  PENTECOST,  A.D.  30.  231 


which  followed  afterwards  in  the  sermon  of  Peter.  It  was  the 
first  Te  Deum  of  the  new-born  church.  It  expressed  itself  in 
unusual,  poetic,  dithyrambic  style  and  with  a peculiar  musical 
intonation.  It  was  intelligible  only  to  those  who  were  in  sym- 
pathy with  the  speaker ; while  unbelievers  scoffingly  ascribed  it 
to  madness  or  excess  of  wine.  Nevertheless  it  served  as  a signifi- 
cant sign  to  all  and  arrested  their  attention  to  the  presence  of 
a supernatural  power.1 

So  far  we  may  say  that  the  Pentecostal  glossolalia  was  the 
same  as  that  in  the  household  of  Cornelius  in  Caesarea  after  his 
conversion,  which  may  be  called  a Gentile  Pentecost,2  as  that  of 
the  twelve  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist  at  Ephesus,  where  it 
appears  in  connection  with  prophesying,3  and  as  that  in  the 
Christian  congregation  at  Corinth.4 

But  at  its  first  appearance  the  speaking  with  tongues  differed 
in  its  effect  upon  the  hearers  by  coming  home  to  them  at  once 
in  their  own  mother-tongues  • while  in  Corinth  it  required  an 
interpretation  to  be  understood.  The  foreign  spectators,  at  least 
a number  of  them,  believed  that  the  unlettered  Galilseans  spoke 
intelligibly  in  the  different  dialects  represented  on  the  occasion.6 
¥e  must  therefore  suppose  either  that  the  speakers  themselves 
were  endowed,  at  least  temporarily,  and  for  the  particular  pur- 
pose of  proving  their  divine  mission,  with  the  gift  of  foreign 
languages  not  learned  by  them  before,  or  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
who  distributed  the  tongues  acted  also  as  interpreter  of  the 
tongues,  and  applied  the  utterances  of  the  speakers  to  the  suscep- 
tible among  the  hearers. 

The  former  is  the  most  natural  interpretation  of  Luke’s  lan- 
guage. Nevertheless  I suggest  the  other  alternative  as  prefer- 
able, for  the  following  reasons : 1.  The  temporary  endow- 
ment with  a supernatural  knowledge  of  foreign  languages  in- 

1 Comp.  1 Cor.  14 : 22. 

2 Acts  10  : 46. 

3 Acts  19  : 6. 

4 1 Cor.  chs.  12  and  14. 

6 Acts  2:8:  fKaaros  rrj  lS(a  8ia\t/<T<p  fj/ucov  tv  rj  tyevrfi&vucv.  Comp.  ver. 
11 : i.Ko{/ofxev  \o\ovvtwv  avruv  reus  fjutTepais  y\dxraais  rh  fxtyaXeia  tov  &eov. 


232 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


volves  nearly  all  the  difficulties  of  a permanent  endowment, 
which  is  now  generally  abandoned,  as  going  far  beyond  the  data 
of  the  New  Testament  and  known  facts  of  the  early  spread  of 
the  gospel.  2.  The  speaking  with  tongues  began  before  the 
spectators  arrived,  that  is  before  there  was  any  motive  for  the 
employment  of  foreign  languages.1  3.  The  intervening  agency 
of  the  Spirit  harmonizes  the  three  accounts  of  Luke,  and  Luke 
and  Paul,  or  the  Pentecostal  and  the  Corinthian  glossolalia ; the 
only  difference  remaining  is  that  in  Corinth  the  interpretation 
of  tongues  was  made  by  men  in  audible  speech,2 *  in  Jerusalem 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  inward  illumination  and  application. 
4.  The  Holy  Spirit  was  certainly  at  work  among  the  hearers  as 
well  as  the  speakers,  and  brought  about  the  conversion  of  three 
thousand  on  that  memorable  day.  If  he  applied  and  made 
effective  the  sermon  of  Peter,  why  not  also  the  preceding  dox- 
ologies  and  benedictions  ? 5.  Peter  makes  no  allusion  to  foreign 
languages,  nor  does  the  prophecy  of  Joel  which  he  quotes. 
6.  This  view  best  explains  the  opposite  effect  upon  the  specta- 
tors. They  did  by  no  means  all  understand  the  miracle,  but  the 
mockers,  like  those  at  Corinth,5  thought  the  disciples  were  out 
of  their  right  mind  and  talked  not  intelligible  words  in  their 
native  dialects,  but  unintelligible  nonsense.  The  speaking  in  a 
foreign  language  could  not  have  been  a proof  of  drunkenness. 
It  may  be  objected  to  this  view  that  it  implies  a mistake  on  the 
part  of  the  hearers  who  traced  the  use  of  their  mother-tongues 
directly  to  the  speakers ; but  the  mistake  referred  not  to  the  fact 
itself,  but  only  to  the  mode.  It  was  the  same  Spirit  who  in- 
spired the  tongues  of  the  speakers  and  the  hearts  of  the  suscep- 
tible hearers,  and  raised  both  above  the  ordinary  level  of  con- 
sciousness. 

Whichever  view  we  take  of  this  peculiar  feature  of  the  Pen- 
tecostal glossolalia,  in  this  diversified  application  to  the  cosmo- 
politan multitude  of  spectators,  it  was  a symbolical  anticipation 

1 Comp.  vers.  4 and  6. 

* 1 Cor.  14  : 5,  13,  27,  28  ; comp.  1 Cor.  12  : 10,  30. 

* Comp.  1 Cor.  14 : 23. 


§ 24.  THE  MIRACLE  OF  PENTECOST,  A.D.  30.  233 


and  prophetic  announcement  of  the  universalness  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  which  was  to  be  proclaimed  in  all  the  languages  of 
the  earth  and  to  unite  all  nations  in  one  kingdom  of  Christ.  The 
humility  and  love  of  the  church  united  what  the  pride  and  hatred 
of  Babel  had  scattered.  In  this  sense  we  may  say  that  the  Pen- 
tecostal harmony  of  tongues  was  the  counterpart  of  the  Baby- 
lonian confusion  of  tongues.1 2 * * * * 

The  speaking  with  tongues  was  followed  by  the  sermon  of 
Peter ; the  act  of  devotion,  by  an  act  of  teaching ; the  rapturous 
language  of  the  soul  in  converse  with  God,  by  the  sober  words  of 
ordinary  self-possession  for  the  benefit  of  the  people. 

While  the  assembled  multitude  wondered  at  this  miracle  with 
widely  various  emotions,  St.  Peter,  the  Rock-man,  appeared  in 
the  name  of  all  the  disciples,  and  addressed  them  with  remark- 
able clearness  and  force,  probably  in  his  own  vernacular  Ara- 
maic, which  would  be  most  familiar  to  the  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem,  possibly  in  Greek,  which  would  be  better  under- 
stood by  the  foreign  visitors.8  He  humbly  condescended  to  re- 
fute the  charge  of  intoxication  by  reminding  them  of  the  early 
hour  of  the  day,  when  even  drunkards  are  sober,  and  explained 
from  the  prophecies  of  Joel  and  the  sixteenth  Psalm  of  David 
the  meaning  of  the  supernatural  phenomenon,  as  the  work  of 
that  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  whom  the  Jews  had  crucified,  but  who 
was  by  word  and  deed,  by  his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  his 
exaltation  to  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  the  effusion  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  accredited  as  the  promised  Messiah,  according  to 
the  express  prediction  of  the  Scripture.  Then  he  called  upon 
his  hearers  to  repent  and  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  as 
the  founder  and  head  of  the  heavenly  kingdom,  that  even  they, 
though  they  had  crucified  him,  the  Lord  and  the  Messiah,  might 


1 Grotius  (in  loo.):  11  Poena  linguarum  dispersit  homines , donum  linguarum 
dispersos  in  unum  populum  collegit.'y  See  note  on  Glossolalia. 

2 The  former  is  the  usual  view,  the  latter  is  maintained  by  Stanley,  Plump- 

tre,  and  Farrar.  Paul  addressed  the  excited  multitude  in  Jerusalem  in  the 

Hebrew  tongue,  which  commanded  greater  silence,  Acts  22  : 2.  This  implies 

that  they  would  not  have  understood  him  in  Greek  as  well,  or  listened  as 

attentively. 


234 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


receive  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
whose  wonderful  workings  they  saw  and  heard  in  the  disciples. 

This  was  the  first  independent  testimony  of  the  apostles,  the 
first  Christian  sermon : simple,  unadorned,  but  full  of  Scripture 
truth,  natural,  suitable,  pointed,  and  more  effective  than  any 
other  sermon  has  been  since,  though  fraught  with  learning  and 
burning  with  eloquence.  It  resulted  in  the  conversion  and  bap- 
tism of  three  thousand  persons,  gathered  as  first-fruits  into  the 
garners  of  the  church. 

In  these  first-fruits  of  the  glorified  Redeemer,  and  in  this 
founding  of  the  new  economy  of  Spirit  and  gospel,  instead  of 
the  old  theocracy  of  letter  and  law,  the  typical  meaning  of  the 
Jewish  Pentecost  was  gloriously  fulfilled.  But  this  birth-day 
of  the  Christian  church  is  in  its  turn  only  the  beginning,  the 
type  and  pledge,  of  a still  greater  spiritual  harvest  and  a univer- 
sal feast  of  thanksgiving,  when,  in  the  full  sense  of  the  prophecy 
of  Joel,  the  Holy  Spirit  shall  be  poured  out  on  all  flesh,  when 
all  the  sons  and  daughters  of  men  shall  walk  in  his  light,  and 
God  shall  be  praised  with  new  tongues  of  fire  for  the  completion 
of  his  wonderful  work  of  redeeming  love. 

NOTES. 

I.  Glossolaua. — The  Gift  of  Tongues  is  the  most  difficult  feature  of 
the  Pentecostal  miracle.  Our  only  direct  source  of  information  is  the 
second  chapter  in  Acts,  but  the  gift  itself  is  mentioned  in  two  other  pas- 
sages, ch.  10  : 46  and  19 : 6,  in  the  concluding  section  of  Mark  (of  disputed 
genuineness),  and  fully  described  by  Paul  in  the  12th  and  14th  chapters 
of  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to 
the  existence  of  that  gift  in  the  apostolic  age,  and  if  we  had  only  either 
the  account  of  Pentecost,  or  only  the  account  of  Paul,  we  would  not  hesi- 
tate to  decide  as  to  its  nature,  but  the  difficulty  is  in  harmonizing  the  two. 

(1)  The  terms  employed  for  the  strange  tongues  are  “new  tongues”  (kcuvui 
y\ai To-ai,  Mark  16  : 17,  where  Christ  promises  the  gift),  “ other  tongues,” 
differing  from  ordinary  tongues  (ercpai  y\.  Acts  2 : 4,  but  nowhere 
else),  “kinds”  or  “ diversities  of  tongues”  (ycvrj  yXcoaravv,  1 Cor.  12  : 28), 
or  simply  “ tongues  ” (yX&xro-ai,  1 Cor.  14 : 22),  and  in  the  singular, 
tongue  ” (y\<o(T(raJ  vers.  2,  13, 19,  27,  in  which  passages  the  E.  V.  inserts 
the  interpolation  “ unknown  tongue  ”).  To  speak  in  tongues  is  called 
y\axr<rais  or  yXdxraj]  XaXe 7v  (Acts  2:4;  10  : 46  ; 19:6;  1 Cor.  14  : 2,  4,  13, 


§ 24.  TIIE  MIRACLE  OF  PENTECOST,  A.D.  30.  235 


14,  19,  27).  Paul  uses  also  the  phrase  to  “pray  with  the  tongue” 
•npoafvxfa^ai  yAw  0-077),  as  equivalent  to  “ praying  and  singing  with  the 
spirit  ” (npoar€v\ea^ai  and  r/suXXfiv  rw  iwevpan,  and  as  distinct  from 
npo(Tfv\c(T?iai  and  (iv  to)  vot,  1 Cor.  14  : 14,  15).  The  plural  and  the 
term  “ diversities  ” of  tongues,  as  well  as  the  distinction  between  tongues 
of  “angels”  and  tongues  of  “men”  (1  Cor.  13:1)  point  to  different 
manifestations  (speaking,  praying,  singing),  according  to  the  individu- 
ality, education,  and  mood  of  the  speaker,  but  not  to  various  foreign 
languages,  which  are  excluded  by  Paul’s  description. 

The  term  tongue  has  been  differently  explained. 

(a)  Wieseler  (and  Yan  Hengel) : the  organ  of  speech,  used  as  a pas% 
sive  instrument ; speaking  with  the  tongue  alone , inarticulately,  and  in  a 
low  whisper.  But  this  does  not  explain  the  plural,  nor  the  terms  “ new  " 
and  “other”  tongues ; the  organ  of  speech  remaining  the  same. 

(b)  Bleek : rare,  provincial,  archaic,  poetic  words,  or  glosses  (whence 
our  “ glossary  ”).  But  this  technical  meaning  of  yXo oaoai  occurs  only  in 
classical  writers  (as  Aristotle,  Plutarch,  etc.)  and  among  grammarians, 
not  in  Hellenistic  Greek,  and  the  interpretation  does  not  suit  the  singu- 
lar yXcoaaa  and  yXaxrarj  XaXeiv,  as  yXwcrira  could  only  mean  a single  gloss. 

(c)  Most  commentators : language  or  dialect  (StuAtxros,  comp.  Acts 
1:19;  2 : 6,  8 ; 21:40;  26  : 14).  This  is  the  correct  view.  “ Tongue  n 
is  an  abridgment  for  “ new  tongue  ” (which  was  the  original  term,  Mark 
16  : 17 ).  It  does  not  necessarily  mean  one  of  the  known  languages  of  the 
earth,  but  may  mean  a peculiar  handling  of  the  vernacular  dialect  of  the 
speaker,  or  a new  spiritual  language  never  known  before,  a language  of 
immediate  inspiration  in  a state  of  ecstasy.  The  “tongues”  were  indi- 
vidual varieties  of  this  language  of  inspiration. 

(2)  The  glossolalia  in  the  Corinthian  church,  with  which  that  at 
Caesarea  in  Acts  10  : 46,  and  that  at  Ephesus,  19  : 6,  are  evidently  identical, 
we  know  veiy  well  from  the  description  of  Paul.  It  occurred  in  the  first 
glow  of  enthusiasm  after  conversion  and  continued  for  some  time.  It 
was  not  a speaking  in  foreign  languages,  which  would  have  been  entirely 
useless  in  a devotional  meeting  of  converts,  but  a speaking  in  a language 
differing  from  all  known  languages,  and  required  an  interpreter  to  be 
intelligible  to  foreigners.  It  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  spread  of 
the  gospel,  although  it  may,  like  other  devotional  acts,  have  become 
a means  of  conversion  to  susceptible  unbelievers  if  such  were  present. 
It  was  an  act  of  self-devotion,  an  act  of  thanksgiving,  praying,  and  sing- 
ing, within  the  Christian  congregation,  by  individuals  who  were  wholly 
absorbed  in  communion  with  God,  and  gave  utterance  to  their  raptur- 
ous feelings  in  broken,  abrupt,  rhapsodic,  unintelligible  words.  It  was 
emotional  rather  than  intellectual,  the  language  of  the  excited  imagina- 
tion, not  of  cool  reflection.  It  was  the  language  of  the  spirit  (nvevpa) 
or  of  ecstasy,  as  distinct  from  the  language  of  the  understanding  (t W). 
We  might  almost  illustrate  the  difference  by  a comparison  of  the  style 


236 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


of  the  Apocalypse  which  was  conceived  eV  nix  v pan  (Apoc.  1 : 10)  with 
that  of  the  Gospel  of  John,  which  was  written  iv  vdi.  The  speaker 
in  tongues  was  in  a state  of  spiritual  intoxication,  if  we  may  use  this 
term,  analogous  to  the  poetic  “ frenzy  ” described  by  Shakespeare  and 
Goethe.  His  tongue  was  a lyre  on  which  the  divine  Spirit  played  celes- 
tial tunes.  He  was  unconscious  or  only  half  conscious,  and  scarcely 
knew  whether  he  was  “in  the  body  or  out  of  the  body.”  No  one  could 
understand  this  unpremeditated  religious  rhapsody  unless  he  was  in  a 
similar  trance.  To  an  unbelieving  outsider  it  sounded  like  a barbarous 
tongue,  like  the  uncertain  sound  of  a trumpet,  like  the  raving  of  a maniac 
(1  Cor.  14  : 23),  or  the  incoherent  talk  of  a drunken  man  (Acts  2 : 13,  15). 
“ He  that  speaketh  in  a tongue  speaketh  not  to  men , but  to  God;  for  no 
one  understandeth ; and  in  the  spirit  he  speaketh  mysteries ; but  ho 
that  prophesieth  speaketh  unto  men  edification,  and  encouragement,  and 
comfort.  He  that  speaketh  in  a tongue  edifieth  himself ; but  he  that 
prophesieth  edifieth  the  church  ” (1  Cor.  14  : 2-4 ; comp.  26-33). 

The  Corinthians  evidently  overrated  the  glossolalia,  as  a showy  display 
of  divine  power ; but  it  was  more  ornamental  than  useful,  and  vanished 
away  with  the  bridal  season  of  the  church.  It  is  a mark  of  the  great 
wisdom  of  Paul  who  was  himself  a master  in  the  glossolalia  (1  Cor.  14  : 18), 
that  he  assigned  to  it  a subordinate  and  transient  position,  restrained  its 
exercise,  demanded  an  interpretation  of  it,  and  gave  the  preference  to 
the  gifts  of  permanent  usefulness  in  which  God  displays  his  goodness 
and  love  for  the  general  benefit.  Speaking  with  tongues  is  good,  but  pro- 
phesying and  teaching  in  intelligible  speech  for  the  edification  of  the 
congregation  is  better,  and  love  to  God  and  men  in  active  exercise  is 
best  of  all  (1  Cor.  ch.  13). 

We  do  not  know  how  long  the  glossolalia,  as  thus  described  by  Paul, 
continued.  It  passed  away  gradually  with  the  other  extraordinary  or 
strictly  supernatural  gifts  of  the  apostolic  age.  It  is  not  mentioned  in 
the  Pastoral,  nor  in  the  Catholic  Epistles.  We  have  but  a few  allu- 
sions to  it  at  the  close  of  the  second  century.  Irenseus  (Adv.  Hner.  1.  v. 
c.  6,  $ 1)  speaks  of  “ many  brethren  ” whom  he  heard  in  the  church  hav- 
ing the  gift  of  prophecy  and  of  speaking  in  “ diverse  tongues”  (navToda- 
nais  yXoxracus),  bringing  the  hidden  things  of  men  (ra  Kpvqna  ri cv  dv%poono*v) 
to  light  and  expounding  the  mysteries  of  God  (r«  pvar^pia  rov  3eoC).  It 
is  not  clear  whether  by  the  term  “ diverse,”  which  does  not  elsewhere 
occur,  he  means  a speaking  in  foreign  languages,  or  in  diversities  of 
tongues  altogether  peculiar,  like  those  meant  by  Paul.  The  latter 
is  more  probable.  Irenseus  himself  had  to  learn  the  language  of  Gaul. 
Tertullian  (Adv.  Marc.  V.  8 ; comp.  Be  Anima , c.  9)  obscurely  speaks  of 
the  spiritual  gifts,  including  the  gift  of  tongues,  as  being  still  manifest 
among  the  Montanists  to  whom  he  belonged.  At  the  time  of  Chrysos- 
tom it  had  entirely  disappeared ; at  least  he  accounts  for  the  obscurity 
of  the  gift  from  our  ignorance  of  the  fact.  From  that  time  on  the  glos- 


§ 24.  TTIE  MIRACLE  OF  PENTECOST,  A.D.  30.  237 


solalia  was  usually  misunderstood  as  a miraculous  and  permanent  gift 
of  foreign  languages  for  missionary  purposes.  But  the  whole  history  of 
missions  furnishes  no  clear  example  of  such  a gift  for  such  a pur- 
pose. 

Analogous  phenomena,  of  an  inferior  kind,  and  not  miraculous,  yet 
serving  as  illustrations,  either  by  approximation  or  as  counterfeits,  reap- 
peared from  time  to  time  in  seasons  of  special  religious  excitement,  as 
among  the  Camisards  and  the  prophets  of  the  Gevennes  in  France, 
among  the  early  Quakers  and  Methodists,  the  Mormons,  the  Readers 
(“  Lasare  ”)  in  Sweden  in  1841  to  1843,  in  the  Irish  revivals  of  1859,  and 
especially  in  the  “ Catholic  Apostolic  Church,”  commonly  called  Irving- 
ites,  from  1831  to  1833,  and  even  to  this  day.  See  Ed.  Irving’s  articles 
on  Gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost  called  Supernatural , in  his  “Works,”  vol.  V., 
p.  509,  etc.  ; Mrs.  Oliphant’s  Life  of  Irving , vol.  II. ; the  descriptions 
quoted  in  my  Hist.  Ap.  Ch.  § 55,  p.  198 ; and  from  friend  and  foe  in  Stan- 
ley’s Com.  on  Corinth .,  p.  252,  4th  ed. ; also  Plumptre  in  Smith’s  “Bible 
Diet.,”  IV.  3311,  Am.  ed.  The  Irvingites  who  have  written  on  the  sub- 
ject (Thiersch,  Bohm,  and  Rossteuscher)  make  a marked  distinction  be- 
tween the  Pentecostal  glossolalia  in  foreign  languages  and  the  Corinthian 
glossolalia  in  devotional  meetings  ; and  it  is  the  latter  only  which  they 
compare  to  their  own  experience.  Several  years  ago  I witnessed  this 
phenomenon  in  an  Irvingite  congregation  in  New  York ; the  words  were 
broken,  ejaculatory  and  unintelligible,  but  uttered  in  abnormal,  start- 
ling, impressive  sounds,  in  a state  of  apparent  unconsciousness  and  rap- 
ture, and  without  any  control  over  the  tongue,  which  was  seized  as  it 
were  by  a foreign  power.  A friend  and  colleague  (Dr.  Briggs),  who 
witnessed  it  in  1879  in  the  principal  Irvingite  church  at  London,  re- 
ceived the  same  impression. 

(3)  The  Pentecostal  glossolalia  cannot  have  been  essentially  different 
from  the  Corinthian  : it  w'as  likewise  an  ecstatic  act  of  worship,  of  tlianks- 
giving  and  praise  for  the  great  deeds  of  God  in  Christ,  a dialogue  of  the 
soul  with  God.  It  was  the  purest  and  the  highest  utterance  of  the  jubi- 
lant enthusiasm  of  the  new-born  church  of  Christ  in  the  possession  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  It  began  before  the  spectators  arrived  (comp.  vers.  4 
and  6),  and  was  followed  by  a missionary  discourse  of  Peter  in  plain, 
ordinary  language.  Luke  mentions  the  same  gift  twice  again  (chs.  10 
and  19)  evidently  as  an  act  of  devotion,  and  not  of  teaching. 

Nevertheless,  according  to  the  evident  meaning  of  Luke’s  narrative, 
the  Pentecostal  glossolalia  differed  from  the  Corinthian  not  only  by  its 
intensity,  but  also  by  coming  home  to  the  hearers  then  present  in  their 
own  vernacular  dialects , without  the  medium  of  a human  interpreter. 
Hence  the  term  “ different  ” tongues,  which  Paul  does  not  use,  nor  Luke 
in  any  other  passage ; hence  the  astonishment  of  the  foreigners  at  hearing 
each  his  own  peculiar  idiom  from  the  lips  of  those  unlettered  Galilseans. 
It  is  this  heteroglossolalia,  as  I may  term  it,  which  causes  the  chief  diffi- 


238 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


culty.  I will  give  the  various  views  which  either  deny,  or  shift,  or  inten- 
sify, or  try  to  explain  this  foreign  element. 

(a)  The  rationalistic  interpretation  cuts  the  Gordian  knot  by  denying 
the  miracle,  as  a mistake  of  the  narrator  or  of  the  early  Christian  tradi- 
tion. Even  Meyer  surrenders  the  heteroglossolalia,  as  far  as  it  differs 
from  the  Corinthian  glossolalia,  as  an  unhistorical  tradition  which  origi- 
nated in  a mistake,  because  he  considers  the  sudden  communication  of 
the  facility  of  speaking  foreign  languages  as  “logically  impossible,  and 
psychologically  and  morally  inconceivable  ” (Com.  on  Acts  2 : 4,  4th  ed.). 
But  Luke,  the  companion  of  Paul,  must  have  been  familiar  with  the 
glossolalia  in  the  apostolic  churches,  and  in  the  two  other  passages  where 
he  mentions  it  he  evidently  means  the  same  phenomenon  as  that  de- 
scribed by  Paul. 

(b)  The  heteroglossolalia  was  a mistake  of  the  hearers  (a  Horwunder ), 
who  in  the  state  of  extraordinary  excitement  and  profound  sympathy 
imagined  that  they  heard  their  own  language  from  the  disciples  ; while 
Luke  simply  narrates  their  impression  without  correcting  it.  This  view 
was  mentioned  (though  not  adopted)  by  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and  held  by 
Pseudo -Cyprian,  the  venerable  Bede,  Erasmus,  Schneckenburger  and 
others.  If  the  pentecostal  language  was  the  Hellenistic  dialect,  it  could, 
with  its  composite  character,  its  Hebraisms  and  Latinisms,  the  more 
easily  produce  such  an  effect  when  spoken  by  persons  stirred  in  the  in- 
most depth  of  their  hearts  and  lifted  out  of  themselves.  St.  Xavier  is 
said  to  have  made  himself  understood  by  the  Hindoos  without  knowing 
their  language,  and  St.  Bernard,  St.  Anthony  of  Padua,  St.  Vincent 
Ferrer  were  able,  by  the  spiritual  power  of  their  eloquence,  to  kindle 
the  enthusiasm  and  sway  the  passions  of  multitudes  who  were  ignorant 
of  their  language.  Olshausen  and  Baumlein  call  to  aid  the  phenomena 
of  magnetism  and  somnambulism,  by  which  people  are  brought  into 
mysterious  rapport. 

(c)  The  glossolalia  was  speaking  in  archaic,  poetic  glosses,  with  an 
admixture  of  foreign  words.  This  view,  learnedly  defended  by  Bleek 
(1829),  and  adopted  with  modifications  by  Baur  (1838),  has  already  been 
mentioned  above  (p.  233),  as  inconsistent  with  Hellenistic  usage,  and  the 
natural  meaning  of  Luke. 

(d)  The  mystical  explanation  regards  the  Pentecostal  Gift  of  Tongues 
in  some  way  as  a counterpart  of  the  Confusion  of  Tongues,  either  as  a 
temporary  restoration  of  the  original  language  of  Paradise,  or  as  a pro- 
phetic anticipation  of  the  language  of  heaven  in  which  all  languages  are 
united.  This  theory,  which  is  more  deep  than  clear,  turns  the  hetero- 
glossolalia into  a homoglossolalia,  and  puts  the  miracle  into  the  lan- 
guage itself  and  its  temporary  restoration  or  anticipation.  Schelling  calls 
the  Pentecostal  miracle  “Babel  reversed”  ( das  umgekehrte  Babel),  and 
says : “ Dem  Ereigniss  der  Sprachenverwirrung  Idsst  sick  in  der  ganzen 
Folge  der  religiosen  Geschichte  nur  Eines  an  die  Seite  stellen , die  momen- 


§ 24.  THE  MIRACLE  OF  PENTECOST,  A D.  30.  239 


tan  wiederhergestellte  Spracheinheit  (o/xo-yXonro-ta)  am  Pjingstfeste , mit  dem 
das  Christenthum , bestimmt  das  game  Menschengeschlecht  durchdie  Erkennt- 
niss  des  Einen  wahren  Gotles  wieder  zur  Einheit  zu  vei'kniipfen,  seinen 
grossen  Weg  beginnt.”  (Einl.  in  d.  Philos,  der  Mythologie , p.  109).  A simi- 
lar view  was  defended  by  Billroth  (in  liis  Com.  on  1 Cor.  ch.  14,  p.  177), 
who  suggests  that  the  primitive  language  combined  elements  of  the  differ- 
ent derived  languages,  so  that  each  listener  heard  fragments  of  his  own. 
Lange  (II.  38)  sees  here  the  normal  language  of  the  inner  spiritual  life 
which  unites  the  redeemed,  and  which  runs  through  all  ages  of  the 
church  as  the  leaven  of  languages,  regenerating,  transforming,  and  con- 
secrating them  to  sacred  uses,  but  he  assumes  also,  like  Olshausen,  a sym- 
pathetic rapport  between  speakers  and  hearers.  Delitzscli  ( l . c.  p.  1186) 
says : “ Die  apostolische  VerkiXndigung  erging  damals  in  einer  Sprache  des 
Geistes,  welche  das  Gegenbild  der  in  Babel  zerschellten  Einen  Menschheits - 
sprache  war  und  von  alien  ohne  Untei'schied  der  Sprachen  gleichmdssig  ver- 
standen  wurde.  Wie  das  weisse  Licht  alle  Farben  aus  sich  erschliesst,  so 
fiel  die  geistgewirkte  Apostelsprache  wie  in  prismatischei'  Brechung  ver- 
standlich  in  aller  Ohren  und  ergreifend  in  aller  Herzen.  Es  war  ein  Vor- 
spiel  der  Einigung , in  welchei'  die  von  Babel  datirende  Veruneinigung  sich 
auflieben  wird.  Dem  Sivan-Tag  des  steinemen  Buchstabens  trat  ein  Sivan- 
Tag  des  lebendigmachenden  Geistes  entgegen.  Es  war  der  Geburtstag  dei' 
Kirche , der  Geistesgemeinde  im  Untei'schiede  von  der  alttestamentlichen 
Volksgemeinde ; darum  nennt  Chrysostomus  in  einer  Pjingsthomilie  die 
Pentekoste  die  Metropole  dei'  Feste.”  Ewald’s  view  (VI.  116  sqq.)  is  like- 
wise mystical,  but  original  and  expressed  with  his  usual  confidence.  He 
calls  the  glossolalia  an  “ Aujiallen  und  Aufjauchzen  der  christlichen  Be- 
geisterung , ein  stiirmisches  Hervorbrechen  aller  der  verborgenen  Ge/iihle  und 
Gedanken  in  ihrer  vollsten  Unmittelbarkeit  und  Gewalt.”  He  says  that  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost  the  most  unusual  expressions  and  synonyms  of  dif- 
ferent languages  (as  dpfta  6 narrjp,  Gal.  4:6;  Rom.  8 : 15,  and  papdv  <fod, 
1 Cor.  16  : 22),  -with  reminiscences  of  words  of  Christ  as  resounding  from 
heaven,  commingled  in  the  vortex  of  a new  language  of  the  Spirit,  and 
gave  utterance  to  the  exuberant  joy  of  the  young  Christianity  in  stam- 
mering hymns  of  praise  never  heard  before  or  since  except  in  the  weaker 
manifestations  of  the  same  gift  in  the  Corinthian  and  other  apostolic 
churches. 

(e)  The  Pentecostal  glossolalia  was  a pei'manent  endowment  of  the 
apostles  with  a miraculous  knowledge  of  all  those  foi'eign  languages  in 
which  they  were  to  preach  the  gospel.  As  they  were  sent  to  preach  to 
all  nations,  they  were  gifted  with  the  tongues  of  all  nations.  This  theory 
was  first  clearly  brought  out  by  the  fathers  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centu- 
ries, long  after  the  gift  of  tongues  had  disappeared,  and  was  held  by 
most  of  the  older  divines,  though  with  different  modifications,  but  is 
now  abandoned  by  nearly  all  Protestant  commentators  except  Bishop 
Wordsworth,  who  defends  it  with  patristic  quotations.  Chrysostom  sup- 


240 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


posed  that  each  disciple  was  assigned  the  particular  language  which  he 
needed  for  his  evangelistic  work  ( Horn . on  Acts  2).  Augustine  went 
much  further,  saying  (De  Civ.  Dei , XVIII.  c.  49) : “ Every  one  of  them 
spoke  in  the  tongues  of  all  nations ; thus  signifying  that  the  unity  of  the 
catholic  church  would  embrace  all  nations,  and  would  in  like  manner 
speak  in  all  tongues.”  Some  confined  the  number  of  languages  to  the 
number  of  foreign  nations  and  countries  mentioned  by  Luke  (Chrysos- 
tom), others  extended  it  to  70  or  72  (Augustine  and  Epiphanius),  or  75, 
after  the  number  of  the  sons  of  Noah  (Gen.  ch.  10),  or  even  to  120 
(Pacianus),  after  the  number  of  the  disciples  present.  Baronius  men- 
tions these  opinions  in  Annal.  ad  ann.  34,  vol.  I.  197.  The  feast  of  lan- 
guages in  the  Roman  Propaganda  perpetuates  this  theory,  but  turns  the 
moral  miracle  of  spiritual  enthusiasm  into  a mechanical  miracle  of 
acquired  learning  in  unknown  tongues.  Were  all  the  speakers  to  speak 
at  once,  as  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  it  would  be  a more  than  Babylo- 
nian confusion  of  tongues. 

Such  a stupendous  miracle  as  is  here  supposed  might  be  justified  by 
the  far-reaching  importance  of  that  creative  epoch,  but  it  is  without  a 
parallel  and  surrounded  by  insuperable  difficulties.  The  theory  ignores 
the  fact  that  the  glossolalia  began  before  the  spectators  arrived,  that  is, 
before  there  was  any  necessity  of  using  foreign  languages.  It  isolates 
the  Pentecostal  glossolalia  and  brings  Luke  into  conflict  with  Paul  and 
with  himself ; for  in  all  other  cases  the  gift  of  tongues  appears,  as  already 
remarked,  not  as  a missionary  agency,  but  as  an  exercise  of  devotion.  It 
implies  that  all  the  one  hundred  disciples  present,  including  the  women 
— for  a tongue  as  of  fire  “ sat  upon  each  of  them  ” — were  called  to  be 
traveling  evangelists.  A miracle  of  that  kind  was  superfluous  (a  Litxus- 
wunder) ; for  since  the  conquest  of  Alexander  the  Great  the  Greek  lan- 
guage was  so  generally  understood  throughout  the  Roman  empire  that 
the  apostles  scarcely  needed  any  other — unless  it  was  Latin  and  their 
native  Aramaean — for  evangelistic  purposes ; and  the  Greek  was  used  in 
fact  by  all  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  even  by  James  of  Jerusa- 
lem, and  in  a way  which  shows  that  they  had  learnt  it  like  other  people, 
by  early  training  and  practice.  Moreover  there  is  no  trace  of  such  a 
miraculous  knowledge,  nor  any  such  use  of  it  after  Pentecost.1 * *  On  the 


1 What  may  be  claimed  for  St.  Bernard,  St.  Vincent  Ferrer,  and  St.  Francis 

Xavier  is  not  a miraculous  heteroglossolalia,  but  an  eloquence  so  ardent, 

earnest,  and  intense,  that  the  rude  nations  which  they  addressed  in  Latin  or 

Spanish  imagined  they  heard  them  in  their  mother  tongue.  St.  Bernard 
(d.  1153)  fired  the  Germans  in  Latin  to  the  second  crusade,  and  made  a 
greater  impression  on  them  by  his  very  appearance  than  the  translation  of  the 
same  speech  by  his  interpreter.  See  Neander,  Der  hett.  Bernhard , p.  338 
(2d  ed.).  Alban  Butler  ( Lives  of  the  Saints,  sub  April  5)  reports  of  St.  Vin- 
cent Ferrer  (died  1419)  : *4  Spondanus  and  many  others  say,  the  saint  was 


§ 24.  THE  MIKACLE  OF  PENTECOST,  A.D.  30.  241 


contrary,  we  must  infer  that  Paul  did  not  understand  the  Lycaonian 
dialect  (Acts  14  : 11-14),  and  we  learn  from  early  ecclesiastical  tradition 
that  Peter  used  Mark  as  an  interpreter  Itounutut  or  epg.tjv(vrhs,  inteipres , 
according  to  Papias,  Irenaeus,  and  Tertullian).  God  does  not  supersede 
by  miracle  the  learning  of  foreign  languages  and  other  kinds  of  knowl- 
edge which  can  be  attained  by  the  ordinary  use  of  our  mental  faculties 
and  opportunities. 

( f ) It  was  a temporary  speaking  in  foreign  languages  confined  to  the 
day  of  Pentecost  and  passing  away  with  the  flame-like  tongues.  The 
exception  was  justified  by  the  object,  namely,  to  attest  the  divine  mission 
of  the  apostles  and  to  foreshadow  the  universalness  of  the  gospel.  This 
view  is  taken  by  most  modern  commentators  who  accept  the  account  of 
Luke,  as  Olshausen  (who  combines  with  it  the  theory  b),  Baumgarten, 
Thiersch,  Rossteuscher,  Lechler,  Hackett,  Gloag,  Plumptre  (in  his  Com. 
on  Acts),  and  myself  (in  H.  Ap.  Ch.),  and  accords  best  with  the  plain 
sense  of  the  narrative.  But  it  likewise  makes  an  essential  distinction 
between  the  Pentecostal  and  the  Corinthian  glossolalia,  which  is  extremely 
improbable.  A temporary  endowment  with  the  knowledge  of  foreign 
languages  unknown  before  is  as  great  if  not  a greater  miracle  than  a per- 
manent endowment,  and  was  just  as  superfluous  at  that  time  in  Jerusalem 
as  afterwards  at  Corinth  ; for  the  missionary  sermon  of  Peter,  which  was 
in  one  language  only,  was  intelligible  to  all. 

(g)  The  Pentecostal  glossolalia  was  essentially  the  same  as  the  Corin- 
thian glossolalia,  namely,  an  act  of  worship,  and  not  of  teaching ; with 
only  a slight  difference  in  the  medium  of  interpretation  : it  was  at  once 
internally  interpreted  and  applied  by  the  Holy  Spirit  himself  to  those 
hearers  who  believed  and  were  converted,  to  each  in  his  own  vernacular 
dialect;  while  in  Corinth  the  interpretation  was  made  either  by  the 
speaker  in  tongues,  or  by  one  endowed  with  the  gift  of  interpretation. 

I can  find  no  authority  for  this  theory,  and  therefore  suggest  it  with 
modesty,  but  it  seems  to  me  to  avoid  most  of  the  difficulties  of  the  other 
theories,  and  it  brings  Luke  into  harmony  with  himself  and  with  Paul. 
It  is  certain  that  the  Holy  Spirit  moved  the  hearts  of  the  hearers  as  well 

honored  with  the  gift  of  tongues,  and  that,  preaching  in  his  own , he  was 
understood  by  men  of  different  languages  ; which  is  also  affirmed  by  Lanzano, 
who  says,  that  Greeks,  Germans,  Sardes,  Hungarians,  and  people  of  other 
nations,  declared  they  understood  every  word  he  spoke,  though  he  preached 
in  Latin , or  in  his  mother-tongue , as  spoken  at  Valentia.”  This  account 
clearly  implies  that  Ferrer  did  not  understand  Greek,  German,  and  Hunga- 
rian. As  to  Francis  Xavier  (d.  1552),  Alban  Butler  says  (sub  Dec.  3)  that  the 
gift  of  tongues  was  “a  transient  favor,”  and  that  he  learned  the  Malabar 
tongue  and  the  Japanese  “ by  unwearied  application  ; ” from  which  we  may 
infer  that  his  impression  upon  the  heathen  was  independent  of  the  language. 
Not  one  of  these  saints  claimed  the  gift  of  tongues  or  other  miraculous  powers, 
but  only  their  disciples  or  later  writers. 


242 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


as  the  tongues  of  the  speakers  on  that  first  day  of  the  new  creation  in 
Christ.  In  a natural  form  the  Pentecostal  heteroglossolalia  is  continued 
in  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  in  all  tongues,  and  in  more  than  three  hun- 
dred translations  of  the  Bible. 

II.  False  interpretations  of  the  Pentecostal  miracle. 

(1)  The  older  rationalistic  interpretation  resolves  the  wind  into  a 
thunderstorm  or  a hurricane  surcharged  with  electricity,  the  tongues  of 
fire  into  flashes  of  lightning  falling  into  the  assembly,  or  electric  sparks 
from  a sultry  atmosphere,  and  the  glossolalia  into  a praying  of  each  in 
his  own  vernacular,  instead  of  the  sacred  old  Hebrew,  or  assumes  that 
some  of  the  disciples  knew  several  foreign  dialects  before  and  used  them  on 
the  occasion.  So  Paulus,  Thiess,  Schulthess,  Kuinol,  Schrader,  Fritzsche, 
substantially  also  Renan,  who  dwells  on  the  violence  of  Oriental  thunder- 
storms, but  explains  the  glossolalia  differently,  according  to  analogous 
phenomena  of  later  times.  This  view  makes  the  wonder  of  the  specta- 
tors and  hearers  at  such  an  ordinary  occurrence  a miracle.  It  robs  them 
of  common  sense,  or  charges  dishonesty  on  the  narrator.  It  is  entirely 
inapplicable  to  the  glossolalia  in  Corinth,  which  must  certainly  be  ad- 
mitted as  an  historical  phenomenon  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the  apostolic 
church.  It  is  contradicted  by  the  comparative  wanep  and  axrei  of  the 
narrative,  which  distinguishes  the  sound  from  ordinary  wind  and  the 
tongues  of  flame  from  ordinary  fire  ; just  as  the  words,  “ like  a dove,”  to 
which  all  the  Gospels  compare  the  appearance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at 
Christ’s  baptism,  indicate  that  no  real  dove  is  intended. 

(2)  The  modern  rationalistic  or  mythical  theory  resolves  the  miracle 
into  a subjective  vision  which  was  mistaken  by  the  early  Christians  for 
an  objective  external  fact.  The  glossolalia  of  Pentecost  (not  that  in 
Corinth,  which  is  acknowledged  as  historical)  symbolizes  the  true  idea 
of  the  universalness  of  the  gospel  and  the  Messianic  unification  of  lan- 
guages and  nationalities  (ff?  \abs  K vplov  Ka\  yXwaaa  put,  as  the  Testament 
of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  expresses  it).  It  is  an  imitation  of  the  rabbin- 
ical fiction  (found  already  in  Philo)  that  the  Sinaitic  legislation  was 
proclaimed  through  the  bath-kol>  the  echo  of  the  voice  of  God,  to  all  na- 
tions in  the  seventy  languages  of  the  world.  So  Zeller  ( Contents  and 
Origin  of  the  Acts,  I.  203-205),  who  thinks  that  the  whole  pentecostal 
fact,  if  it  occurred  at  all,  “must  have  been  distorted  beyond  recognition 
in  our  record.”  But  his  chief  argument  is  “ the  impossibility  and  incredi- 
bility of  miracles,”  which  he  declares  (p.  175,  note)  to  be  “ an  axiom  ” of 
the  historian ; thus  acknowledging  the  negative  presupposition  or  philo- 
sophical prejudice  which  underlies  his  historical  criticism.  We  hold,  on 
the  contrary,  that  the  historian  must  accept  the  facts  as  he  finds  them, 
and  if  he  cannot  explain  them  satisfactorily  from  natural  causes  or  sub- 
jective illusions,  he  must  trace  them  to  supernatural  forces.  Now  the 
Christian  church,  which  is  certainly  a most  palpable  and  undeniable  fact. 


§ 24.  TIIE  MIRACLE  OF  PENTECOST,  A.D.  30.  243 


must  have  originated  in  a certain  place,  at  a certain  time,  and  in  a cer- 
tain manner,  and  we  can  imagine  no  more  appropriate  and  satisfactory 
account  of  its  origin  than  that  given  by  Luke.  Baur  and  Zeller  think  it 
impossible  that  three  thousand  persons  should  have  been  converted  in 
one  day  and  in  one  place.  They  forget  that  the  majority  of  the  hearers 
were  no  skeptics,  but  believers  in  a supernatural  revelation,  and  needed 
only  to  be  convinced  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the  promised  Messiah. 
Ewald  says  against  Zeller,  without  naming  him  (VI.  119)  : “Nothing 
can  be  more  perverse  than  to  deny  the  historical  truth  of  the  event  re- 
lated in  Acts  2.”  We  hold  with  Rothe  (Vorlesungen  uber  Kirchenge- 
schichte  I.  33)  that  the  Pentecostal  event  was  a real  miracle  (“ein  eigent- 
liches  Wunder  ”),  which  the  Holy  Spirit  wrought  on  the  disciples  and 
which  endowed  them  with  the  power  to  perform  miracles  (according  to 
the  promise,  Mark  16  : 17, 18).  Without  these  miraculous  powers  Chris- 
tianity could  not  have  taken  hold  on  the  world  as  it  then  stood.  The 
Christian  church  itself,  with  its  daily  experiences  of  regeneration  and 
conversion  at  home  and  in  heathen  lands,  is  the  best  living  and  omni- 
present proof  of  its  supernatural  origin. 

m.  Time  and  Place  of  Pentecost.  Did  it  occur  on  a Lord’s  Day  (the 
eighth  after  Easter),  or  on  a Jewish  Sabbath  ? In  a private  house,  or 
in  the  temple  ? We  decide  for  the  Lord’s  Day,  and  for  a private  house. 
But  opinions  are  much  divided,  and  the  arguments  almost  equally 
balanced. 

(1)  The  choice  of  the  day  in  the  week  depends  partly  on  the  interpre- 
tation of  “ the  morrow  after  the  (Passover)  Sabbath  ” from  which  the 
fiftieth  day  was  to  be  counted,  according  to  the  legislative  prescription 
in  Lev.  23  : 11,  15,  16 — namely,  whether  it  was  the  morrow  following  the 
first  day  of  the  Passover,  i.  e.  the  16th  of  Nisan,  or  the  day  after  the 

regular  Sabbath  in  the  Passover  week ; partly  on  the  date  of  Christ’s 

crucifixion,  which  took  place  on  a Friday,  namely,  whether  this  was  the 
14th  or  15th  of  Nisan.  If  we  assume  that  the  Friday  of  Christ’s  death 
was  the  14th  of  Nisan,  then  the  15th  was  a Sabbath,  and  Pentecost  in 
that  year  fell  on  a Sunday  ; but  if  the  Friday  of  the  crucifixion  was  the 
15th  of  Nisan  (as  I hold  myself,  see  g 16,  p.  133),  then  Pentecost  fell  on 
a Jewish  Sabbath  (so  Wieseler,  who  fixes  it  on  Saturday,  May  27,  a.d.  30), 
unless  we  count  from  the  end  of  the  16th  of  Nisan  (as  Wordsworth  and 
Plump tre  do,  who  put  Pentecost  on  a Sunday).  But  if  we  take  the 

“ Sabbath  ” in  Lev.  23  in  the  usual  sense  of  the  weekly  Sabbath  (as  the 

Sadducees  and  Karaites  did),  then  the  Jewish  Pentecost  fell  always  on  a 
Sunday.  At  all  events  the  Christian  church  has  uniformly  observed 
Whit-Sunday  on  the  eighth  Lord’s  Day  after  Easter,  adhering  in  this 
case,  as  well  as  in  the  festivals  of  the  resurrection  (Sunday)  and  of  the 
ascension  (Thursday),  to  the  old  tradition  as  to  the  day  of  the  week  when 
the  event  occurred.  This  view  would  furnish  an  additional  reason  for 


244 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.  D.  1-100. 


the  substitution  of  Sunday,  as  the  day  of  the  Lord’s  resurrection  and  the 
descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  for  the  Jewish  Sabbath.  Wordsworth : 
“ Thus  the  first  day  of  the  week  has  been  consecrated  to  all  the  three 
Persons  of  the  ever-blessed  and  undivided  Trinity  ; and  the  blessings  of 
Creation,  Redemption,  and  Sanctification  are  commemorated  on  the 
Christian  Sunday.”  Wieseler  assumes,  without  good  reason,  that  the 
ancient  church  deliberately  changed  the  day  from  opposition  to  the  Jew- 
ish Sabbath  ; but  the  celebration  of  Pentecost  together  with  that  of  the 
Resurrection  seems  to  be  as  old  as  the  Christian  church  and  has  its  pre- 
cedent in  the  example  of  Paul,  Acts  18  : 21 ; 20  : 16. — Lightfoot  ( Hone 
Hebr.  in  Acta  Ap.  2:1;  Opera  II.  692)  counts  Pentecost  from  the  16th 
of  Nisan,  but  nevertheless  puts  the  first  Christian  Pentecost  on  a Sun- 
day by  an  unusual  and  questionable  interpretation  of  Acts  2:1  fVru 
awnhrjfjuva'Sui  rrjv  rjixt pav  ttjs  tttvTTjKoarfis , which  he  makes  to  mean  “ when 
the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  gone,”  instead  of  “ was  fully  come”  But 
whether  Pentecost  fell  on  a Jewish  Sabbath  or  on  a Lord’s  Day,  the 
coincidence  in  either  case  was  significant. 

(2)  As  to  th e place,  Luke  calls  it  simply  a “ house”  (olkos,  2 : 2),  which 
can  hardly  mean  the  temple  (not  mentioned  till  ver.  46).  It  was  proba- 
bly the  same  “ upper  room  ” or  chamber  which  he  had  mentioned  in  the 
preceding  chapter,  as  the  well  known  usual  meeting  place  of  the  disci- 
ples after  the  ascension,  ro  vncpmov  . . . ov  rjaav  Karapevovres,  1 : 13).  So 
Neander,  Meyer,  Ewald,  Wordsworth,  Plumptre,  Farrar,  and  others. 
Perhaps  it  was  the  same  chamber  in  which  our  Lord  partook  of  the 
Paschal  Supper  with  them  (Mark  14  : 14,  15  ; Matt.  26  : 28).  Tradition 
locates  both  events  in  the  “ Ccenaculum,”  a room  in  an  irregular  build- 
ing called  “ David’s  Tomb,”  which  lies  outside  of  Zion  Gate  some  dis- 
tance from  Mt.  Moriah.  (See  William  M.  Thomson,  The  Land  and  the 
Book,  new  ed.  1880,  vol.  I.  p.  535  sq. ) But  Cyril  of  J erusalem  ( Catech.  XVI. 
4)  states  that  the  apartment  where  the  Holy  Spirit  descended  was  after- 
wards converted  into  a church.  The  uppermost  room  under  the  fiat 
roof  of  Oriental  houses  (vnepwov,  wTas  often  used  as  a place  of  de- 

votion (comp.  Acts  20  : 8).  But  as  a private  house  could  not  possibly 
hold  so  great  a multitude,  we  must  suppose  that  Peter  addressed  the 
people  in  the  street  from  the  roof  or  from  the  outer  staircase. 

Many  of  the  older  divines,  as  also  Olshausen,  Baumgarten,  Wieseler, 
Lange,  Thiersch  (and  myself  in  first  ed.  of  Ap.  Ch.,  p.  194),  locate  the 
Pentecostal  scene  in  the  temple,  or  rather  in  one  of  the  thirty  side  build- 
ings around  it,  which  Josephus  calls  “ houses”  ( o’lkovs ) in  his  description 
of  Solomon’s  temple  (Ant.  VIII.  3,  2),  or  in  Solomon’s  porch,  which 
remained  from  the  first  temple,  and  where  the  disciples  assembled  after- 
wards (Acts  5 : 12,  comp.  3 : 11).  In  favor  of  this  view  may  be  said,  that 
it  better  agrees  with  the  custom  of  the  apostles  (Luke  24  : 53  ; Acts  2 : 46 ; 
5 : 12,  42),  with  the  time  of  the  miracle  (the  morning  hour  of  prayer), 
and  with  the  assembling  of  a large  multitude  of  at  least  three  thousand 


25.  ST.  PETER — CHRISTIANITY  AMONG  TIIE  JEWS.  245 


Hearers,  and  also  that  it  seems  to  give  additional  solemnity  to  the  event 
when  it  took  place  in  the  symbolical  and  typical  sanctuary  of  the  old 
dispensation.  But  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  that  the  hostile  Jews  should 
have  allowed  the  poor  disciples  to  occupy  one  of  those  temple  buildings 
and  not  interfered  with  the  scene.  In  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit 
which  now  began,  the  meanest  dwelling,  and  the  body  of  the  humblest 
Christian  becomes  a temple  of  God.  Comp.  John  4 : 24. 

IV.  Effects  of  the  Day  of  Pentecost.  From  Farrar’s  Life  and  Work 
of  St.  Paul  (I.  93)  : “ That  this  first  Pentecost  marked  an  eternal  moment 
in  the  destiny  of  mankind,  no  reader  of  history  will  surely  deny.  Un- 
doubtedly in  every  age  since  then  the  sons  of  God  have,  to  an  extent 
unknown  before,  been  taught  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  Undoubtedly  since 
then,  to  an  extent  unrealized  before,  we  may  know  that  the  Spirit  of 
Christ  dwelleth  in  us.  Undoubtedly  we  may  enjoy  a nearer  sense  of 
union  with  God  in  Christ  than  was  accorded  to  the  saints  of  the  Old 
Dispensation,  and  a thankful  certainty  that  we  see  the  days  which  kings 
and  prophets  desired  to  see  and  did  not  see  them,  and  hear  the  truths 
which  they  desired  to  hear  and  did  not  hear  them.  And  this  New  Dis- 
pensation began  henceforth  in  all  its  fulness.  It  was  no  exclusive  conse- 
cration to  a separated  priesthood,  no  isolated  endowment  of  a narrow 
apostolate.  It  was  the  consecration  of  a whole  church — its  men,  its 
women,  its  children — to  be  all  of  them  ‘a  chosen  generation,  a royal 
priesthood,  a holy  nation,  a peculiar  people  ; ’ it  was  an  endowment,  of 
which  the  full  free  offer  was  meant  ultimately  to  be  extended  to  all  man- 
kind. Each  one  of  that  hundred  and  twenty  was  not  the  exceptional 
recipient  of  a blessing  and  witness  of  a revelation,  but  the  forerunner 
and  representative  of  myriads  more.  And  this  miracle  was  not  merely 
transient,  but  is  continuously  renewed.  It  is  not  a rushing  sound  and 
gleaming  light,  seen  perhaps  for  a moment,  but  it  is  a living  energy  and 
an  unceasing  inspiration.  It  is  not  a visible  symbol  to  a gathered  hand- 
ful of  human  souls  in  the  upper  room  of  a Jewish  house,  but  a vivifying 
wind  which  shall  henceforth  breathe  in  all  ages  of  the  world’s  history  ; a 
tide  of  light  which  is  rolling,  and  shall  roll,  from  shore  to  shore  until 
the  earth  is  full  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord  as  the  waters  cover  the  sea.” 


§ 25.  The  Church  of  Jerusalem  and  the  Labors  of  Peter. 

e7  nerpos,  kcu  eVl  ravrr}  tt}  rr^rpa  olKoHofi-f)# o»  fiov  t)]v  2mc\ri<Tlav}  Kcd  iruAcu 
$5ov  ov  Kartax^ovaiv  avrrjs. — Matt.  16 : 18. 

Literature. 

X Genuine  sources  : Acts,  chs.  2 to  12  ; Gal.  ch.  2 ; and  two  Epistles  of 
Peter. 

Comp,  the  Commentaries  on  Acts,  and  the  Petrine  Epistles. 


246 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Among  the  commentators  of  Peter’s  Epp.  I mention  Archbishop 
Leighton  (in  many  editions,  not  critical,  but  devout  and  spiritual), 
Steiger  (1832,  translated  by  Fairbaim,  1836),  John  Brown  (1849, 
2 vols.),  Wiesinger  (1856  and  1862,  in  Olshausen’s  Com.),  Schott 
(1861  and  1863),  De  Wette  (3d  ed.  by  Bruckner,  1865),  Huther  (in 
Meyer’s  Com.,  4th  ed.  1877),  Fronmuller  (in  Lange’s  Bibelwerh 
transl.  by  Mombert,  1867),  Alford  (3d  ed.  1864),  John  Lillie  (ed. 
by  Schaff,  1869),  Demarest  ( Cath.  Epp.  1879),  Mason  and  Plummer 
(in  Ellicott’s  Com.,  1879),  Plumptre  (in  the  “ Cambridge  Bible,”  1879, 
with  a veiy  full  introduction,  pp.  1-83),  Salmond  (in  Schaff’s  Pop. 
Com.  1883).  Comp,  also  the  corresponding  sections  in  the  works  on 
the  Apostolic  Age  mentioned  in  § 20,  and  my  H.  Ap.  Ch.  pp.  348-377. 

II.  Apocryphal  sources : EvayyeXiov  Kara  llerpov,  of  Ebionite  origin, 
Krjpvy/xa  llerpov , Updi-eis  llerpov,  'AnoKdXvy^if  llerpov,  II cpiodoi  IleYpov 
( Itinerarium  Petri),  Upa£eis  rcov  dryuav  anoaroXaiV  llerpov  kcu  IlavXov 
(Acta  Petri  et  Pauli).  See  Tischendorf’s  Acta  Apost.  Apocr.  1-39, 
and  Hilgenfeld’s  Novum  Testamentum  extra  canonem  receptum  (1866), 
IV.  52  sqq.  The  Pseudo-Clementine  “ Homilies  ” are  a glorification 
of  Peter  at  the  expense  of  Paul ; the  “ Recognitions  ” are  a Catholic 
recension  and  modification  of  the  “ Homilies.”  The  pseudo-Clemen- 
tine literature  will  be  noticed  in  the  second  Period. 

HI.  Special  works  on  Peter : 

E.  Th.  Mayerhoff:  Historisch-Kritische  Einleitung  in  die  Petrinischen 
Schri/ten.  Hamb.  1835. 

Windischmann  (R.  C.) : Vindicice  Petrince.  Ratisb.  1836. 

Stenglein  (R.  C.)  : Ueber  den  25  jdhrigen  Aufenihalt  des  heil.  Petrus  in 
Rom.  In  the  “ Tubinger  Theol.  Quartalschrift,”  1840. 

J.  Ellendorf  : 1st  Petrus  in  Rom  und  Bishof  der  romischen  Gemeinde 
gewesen?  Darmstadt,  1841.  Transl.  in  the  “Bibliotheca  Sacra,” 
Andover,  1858,  No.  3.  The  author,  a liberal  R.  Cath.,  comes  to  the 
conclusion  that  Peter’s  presence  in  Rome  can  never  be  proven. 

Carlo  Passaglia  (Jesuit)  : De  Prcerogativis  Beati  Petri,  Apostoloi'um 
Principis.  Ratisbon,  1850. 

Thomas  W.  Allies  (R.  C.)  : St.  Peter , his  Name  and  his  Office  as  set  forth 
in  Holy  Scripture.  London,  1852.  Based  upon  the  preceding  work 
of  Father  Passaglia. 

Bernh.  Weiss  : Der  Petrinische  Lehrbegriff.  Berlin,  1855.  Comp,  his 
Bibl.  Theol.  des  N.  T.,  3d  ed.  1880,  and  his  essay,  Die  petrinische 
Frage  in  “ Studien  und  Kritiken,”  1865,  pp.  619-657,  1866,  pp.  255- 
308,  and  1873,  pp.  539-546. 

Thos.  Greenwood  : Cathedra  Petri.  Lond.,  vol.  I.  1859,  chs.  I.  and  II. 
pp.  1-50. 

Perrone  (R.  C.)  : S.  Pietro  in  Roma.  Rome,  1864. 

C.  Holsten  (of  the  Tubingen  School) : Zum  Evangelium  des  Paulus  und 
des  Petrus.  Rostock,  1868. 


§ 25.  ST.  PETER — CHRISTIANITY  AMONG  THE  JEWS.  247 


R.  A.  Lipsius  : Die  Quellen  der  rom.  Petrussage.  Kiel,  1872.  By  the 
same  : Chronologie  der  rom.  Bisclwfe.  Kiel,  1869.  Lipsius  exam- 
ines carefully  the  heretical  sources  of  the  Roman  Peter-legend,  and 
regards  it  as  a fiction  from  beginning  to  end.  A summary  of  his 
view  is  given  by 

Samuel  M.  Jackson  : Lipsius  on  the  Roman  Peter-Legend.  In  the 
“Presbyterian  Quarterly  and  Princeton  Review”  (N.  York)  for  1876, 
pp.  265  sqq. 

G.  Volkmar  : Die  romische  Papstmythe.  Zurich,  1873. 

A.  Hilgenfeld  : Petrus  in  Rom  und  Johannes  in  Kleinasien.  In  his 
“ Zeitschrift  fur  wissenschaftliche  Tlieol.”  for  1872.  Also  his  Ein - 
leitung  in  das  N.  T.,  1875,  pp.  618  sqq. 

W.  Krafft  : Petrus  in  Rom.  Bonn,  1877.  In  the  “ Theol.  Arbeiten  des 
rhein.  wissenschaftl.  Predigervereins,”  m.  185-193. 

Joh.  Friedrich  (Old  Cath.)  : Zur  dltesten  Gesch.  des  PHmates  in  derr 
Kirche.  Bonn,  1879. 

William  M.  Taylor  : Peter  the  Apostle.  N.  York,  1879. 


The  congregation  of  Jerusalem  became  the  mother  church  of 
Jewish  Christianity,  and  thus  of  all  Christendom.  It  grew  both 
inwardly  and  outwardly  under  the  personal  direction  of  the 
apostles,  chiefly  of  Peter,  to  whom  the  Lord  had  early  assigned 
a peculiar  prominence  in  the  work  of  building  his  visible  church 
on  earth.  The  apostles  were  assisted  by  a number  of  presbyters, 
and  seven  deacons  or  persons  appointed  to  care  for  the  poor  and 
the  sick.  But  the  Spirit  moved  in  the  whole  congregation, 
bound  to  no  particular  office.  The  preaching  of  the  gospel,  the 
working  of  miracles  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  and  the  attractive 
power  of  a holy  walk  in  faith  and  love,  were  the  instruments  of 
progress.  The  number  of  the  Christians,  or,  as  they  at  first 
called  themselves,  disciples,  believers,  brethren,  saints,  soon  rose 
to  five  thousand.  They  continued  steadfastly  under  the  instruc- 
tion and  in  the  fellowship  of  the  apostles,  in  the  daily  worship 
of  God  and  celebration  of  the  holy  Supper  with  their  agapae  or 
love-feasts.  They  felt  themselves  to  be  one  family  of  God, 
members  of  one  body  under  one  head,  Jesus  Christ ; and  this 
fraternal  unity  expressed  itself  even  in  a voluntary  community 
of  goods — an  anticipation,  as  it  were,  of  an  ideal  state  at  the 
end  of  history,  but  without  binding  force  upon  any  other  con- 


248 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


gregation.  They  adhered  as  closely  to  the  temple  worship  and 
the  Jewish  observances  as  the  new  life  admitted  and  as  long  as 
there  was  any  hope  of  the  conversion  of  Israel  as  a nation. 
They  went  daily  to  the  temple  to  teach,  as  their  Master  had 
done,  but  held  their  devotional  meetings  in  private  houses.1 

The  addresses  of  Peter  to  the  people  and  the  Sanhedrin  * are 
remarkable  for  their  natural  simplicity  and  adaptation.  They 
are  full  of  fire  and  vigor,  yet  full  of  wisdom  and  persuasion,  and 
always  to  the  point.  More  practical  and  effective  sermons  were 
never  preached.  They  are  testimonies  of  an  eye-witness  so 
timid  a few  weeks  before,  and  now  so  bold  and  ready  at  any 
moment  to  suffer  and  die  for  the  cause.  They  are  an  expansion 
of  his  confession  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  the  Son  of  the  living 
God,  the  Saviour.  lie  preached  no  subtle  theological  doctrines, 
but  a few  great  facts  and  truths  : the  crucifixion  and  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  already  known  to  his  hearers  for  his 
mighty  signs  and  wonders,  his  exaltation  to  the  right  hand  of 
Almighty  God,  the  descent  and  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the 
fulfilment  of  prophecy,  the  approaching  judgment  and  glorious 
restitution  of  all  things,  the  paramount  importance  of  conversion 
and  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  only  name  whereby  we  can  be  saved. 
There  breathes  in  them  an  air  of  serene  joy  and  certain  triumph. 

We  can  form  no  clear  conception  of  this  bridal  season  of  the 
Christian  church  when  no  dust  of  earth  soiled  her  shining  gar- 
ments, when  she  was  wholly  absorbed  in  the  contemplation  and 
love  of  her  divine  Lord,  when  he  smiled  down  upon  her  from 
his  throne  in  heaven,  and  added  daily  to  the  number  of  the 
saved.  It  was  a continued  Pentecost,  it  was  paradise  restored. 
“ They  did  take  their  food  with  gladness  and  singleness  of 
heart,  praising  God,  and  having  favor  with  all  the  people.”  * 

1 Acts  2:46;  3:1;  5:42. 

2 Acts  2 : 14  sqq.  ; 3 : 12  sqq.  ; 5 : 29  sqq.  ; 10  : 34  sqq.  ; 11 : 5 sqq.  ; 15  : 
7 sqq. 

3 Acts  2 : 46,  47.  Renan  says,  with  reference  to  this  period  (Les  apotres , 
ch.  v.),  that  in  no  literary  work  does  the  word  “joy”  so  often  occur  as  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  quotes  1 Thess.  1:6;  5 : 16 ; Rom.  14  : 17 ; 15  : 13; 
Gal.  5 : 22 ; Phil.  1: 25;  3:1;  4:4;  1 John  1 : 4.  Many  other  passages 
might  be  added. 


§ 25.  ST.  PETER — CHRISTIANITY  AMONG  THE  JEWS.  249 

Yet  even  in  this  primitive  apostolic  community  inward  cor- 
ruption early  appeared,  and  with  it  also  the  severity  of  disci- 
pline and  self-purification,  in  the  terrible  sentence  of  Peter  on 
the  hypocritical  Ananias  and  Sappliira. 

At  first  Christianity  found  favor  with  the  people.  Soon, 
however,  it  had  to  encounter  the  same  persecution  as  its  divine 
founder  had  undergone,  but  only,  as  before,  to  transform  it  into 
a blessing  and  a means  of  growth. 

The  persecution  was  begun  by  the  skeptical  sect  of  the  Sad 
ducees,  who  took  offence  at  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  the  centre  of  all  the  apostolic  preaching. 

When  Stephen,  one  of  the  seven  deacons  of  the  church  at 
Jerusalem,  a man  full  of  faith  and  zeal,  the  forerunner  of  the 
apostle  Paul,  boldly  assailed  the  perverse  and  obstinate  spirit  of 
Judaism,  and  declared  the  approaching  downfall  of  the  Mosaic 
economy,  the  Pharisees  made  common  cause  with  the  Sadducees 
against  the  gospel.  Thus  began  the  emancipation  of  Christian- 
ity from  the  temple- worship  of  Judaism,  with  which  it  had  till 
then  remained  at  least  outwardly  connected.  Stephen  himself  was 
falsely  accused  of  blaspheming  Moses,  and  after  a remarkable 
address  in  his  own  defence,  he  was  stoned  by  a mob  (a.d.  37), 
and  thus  became  the  worthy  leader  of  the  sacred  host  of  martyrs, 
whose  blood  was  thenceforth  to  fertilize  the  soil  of  the  church. 
From  the  blood  of  his  martyrdom  soon  sprang  the  great  apostle 
of  the  Gentiles,  now  his  bitterest  persecutor,  and  an  eye-witness 
of  his  heroism  and  of  the  glory  of  Christ  in  his  dying  face.1 

The  stoning  of  Stephen  was  the  signal  for  a general  persecu- 
tion, and  thus  at  the  same  time  for  the  spread  of  Christianity 
over  all  Palestine  and  the  region  around.  And  it  was  soon  fol- 
lowed by  the  conversion  of  Cornelius  of  Caesarea,  which  opened 
the  door  for  the  mission  to  the  Gentiles.  In  this  important 
event  Peter  likewise  was  the  prominent  actor. 

1 On  Stephen  corap.  Thiersch  : De  Stephani  protomartyris  oratione  commen - 
tatio  exegetica , Marb.  1849 ; Baur : Paul , ch.  II.  ; my  Hist,  of  the  Apost. 
Churchy  pp.  211  sqq.  ; and  the  commentaries  of  Meyer,  Lechler,  Hackett, 
Wordsworth,  Pluraptre,  Howson  and  Spence,  on  Acts,  chs.  6 and  7. 


250 


FIRST  PERIOD  A.D.  1-100. 


After  some  seven  years  of  repose  the  church  at  Jerusalem 
Buffered  a new  persecution  under  king  Herod  Agrippa  (a.d.  44). 
James  the  elder,  the  brother  of  John,  was  beheaded.  Peter  was 
imprisoned  and  condemned  to  the  same  fate ; but  he  was  mira- 
culously liberated,  and  then  forsook  Jerusalem,  leaving  the 
church  to  the  care  of  James  the  “brother  of  the  Lord.” 
Eusebius,  Jerome,  and  the  Homan  Catholic  historians  assume 
that  he  went  at  that  early  period  to  Home,  at  least  on  a tem- 
porary visit,  if  not  for  permanent  residence.  But  the  book  of 
Acts  (12  : 17)  says  only  : “ He  departed,  and  went  into  (mother 
place.”  The  indefiniteness  of  this  expression,  in  connection  with 
a remark  of  Paul.  1 Cor.  9 : 5,  is  best  explained  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  he  had  hereafter  no  settled  home,  but  led  the  life  of  a 
travelling  missionary  like  most  of  the  apostles. 

The  Later  Labors  of  Peter. 

Afterwards  we  find  Peter  again  in  Jerusalem  at  the  apostolic 
council  (a.d.  50) ; 1 then  at  Antioch  (51),  where  he  came  into 
temporary  collision  with  Paul ; 2 then  upon  missionary  tours, 
accompanied  by  his  wife  (57) ; 3 perhaps  among  the  dispersed 
Jews  in  Babylon  or  in  Asia  Minor,  to  whom  he  addressed  his 
epistles.4  Of  a residence  of  Peter  in  Home  the  Hew  Testament 
contains  no  trace,  unless,  as  the  church  fathers  and  many  modern 
expositors  think,  Home  is  intended  by  the  mystic  “ Babylon  ” 
mentioned  in  1 Pet.  5 : 13  (as  in  the  Apocalypse),  but  others 
think  of  Babylon  on  the  Euphrates,  and  still  others  of  Babylon 
on  the  Hile  (near  the  present  Cairo,  according  to  the  Coptic  tra- 
dition). The  entire  silence  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  in  ch. 
28,  respecting  Peter,  as  well  as  the  silence  of  Paul  in  his  epistle 
to  the  Homans,  and  the  epistles  written  from  Home  during  his 
imprisonment  there,  in  which  Peter  is  not  once  named  in  the 
salutations,  is  decisive  proof  that  he  was  absent  from  that  city 
during  most  of  the  time  between  the  years  58  and  63.  A casual 
visit  before  58  is  possible,  but  extremely  doubtful,  in  view  of 


1 a.d.  50  : Acts  ch.  15. 
* Gal.  2 : 11  sqq. 


* 1 Cor.  9 : 5. 
« 1 Pet.  1 : 1. 


§ 25.  ST.  PETEK — CHRISTIANITY  AMONG  TIIE  JEWS.  251 

the  fact  that  Paul  labored  independently  and  never  built  on  the 
foundation  of  others ; 1 hence  he  would  probably  not  have  writ- 
ten his  epistle  to  the  Romans  at  all,  certainly  not  without  somo 
allusion  to  Peter  if  he  had  been  in  any  proper  sense  the  founder 
of  the  church  of  Rome.  After  the  year  63  we  have  no  data 
from  the  New  Testament,  as  the  Acts  close  with  that  year,  and 
the  interpretation  of  “ Babylon  ” at  the  end  of  the  first  Epistle  of 
Peter  is  doubtful,  though  probably  meant  for  Rome.  The  mar- 
tyrdom of  Peter  by  crucifixion  was  predicted  by  our  Lord,  John 
21  : 18,  19,  but  no  place  is  mentioned. 

We  conclude  then  that  Peter’s  presence  in  Rome  before  63  is 
made  extremely  doubtful,  if  not  impossible,  by  the  silence  of 
Luke  and  Paul,  when  speaking  of  Rome  and  writing  from  Rome, 
and  that  his  presence  after  63  can  neither  be  proved  nor  dis- 
proved from  the  New  Testament,  and  must  be  decided  by  post- 
biblical  testimonies. 

It  is  the  uniform  tradition  of  the  eastern  and  western  churches 
that  Peter  preached  the  gospel  in  Rome,  and  suffered  martyr- 
dom there  in  the  Neronian  persecution.  So  say  more  or  less 
clearly,  yet  not  without  admixture  of  error,  Clement  of  Rome 
(who  mentions  the  martyrdom,  but  not  the  place),  at  the  close 
of  the  first  century  ; Ignatius  of  Antioch  (indistinctly),  Diony- 
sius of  Corinth,  Irenseus  of  Lyons,  Caius  of  Rome,  in  the 
second  century ; Clement  of  Alexandria,  Origen,  Hippolytus, 
Tertullian,  in  the  third;  Lactantius,  Eusebius,  Jerome,  and 
others,  in  the  fourth.  To  these  patristic  testimonies  may  be 
added  the  apocryphal  testimonies  of  the  pseudo-Petrine  and 
pseudo-Clementine  fictions,  which  somehow  connect  Peter’s  name 
with  the  founding  of  the  churches  of  Antioch,  Alexandria,  Cor- 
inth, and  Rome.  However  these  testimonies  from  various  men 
and  countries  may  differ  in  particular  circumstances,  they  can 
only  be  accounted  for  on  the  supposition  of  some  fact  at  the 
bottom ; for  they  were  previous  to  any  use  or  abuse  of  this 
tradition  for  heretical  or  for  orthodox  and  hierarchical  purposes. 


1 Bom.  15:20;  2 Cor.  10:16. 


252 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


The  chief  error  of  the  witnesses  from  Dionysius  and  Irenaeus 
onward  is  that  Peter  is  associated  with  Paul  as  “ founder  ” of 
the  church  of  Rome ; but  this  may  be  explained  from  the  very 
probable  fact  that  some  of  the  “ strangers  from  Rome  ” who 
witnessed  the  Pentecostal  miracle  and  heard  the  sermon  of 
Peter,  as  also  some  disciples  who  were  scattered  abroad  by  the 
persecution  after  the  martyrdom  of  Stephen,  carried  the  seed  of 
the  gospel  to  Rome,  and  that  these  converts  of  Peter  became 
the  real  founders  of  the  Jewisli-Christian  congregation  in  the 
metropolis.  Thus  the  indirect  agency  of  Peter  was  naturally 
changed  into  a direct  agency  by  tradition  which  forgot  the 
names  of  the  pupils  in  the  glorification  of  the  teacher. 

The  time  of  Peter’s  arrival  in  Rome,  and  the  length  of  his 
residence  there,  cannot  possibly  be  ascertained.  The  above- 
mentioned  silence  of  the  Acts  and  of  Paul’s  Epistles  allows  him 
only  a short  period  of  labor  there,  after  63.  The  Roman  tradi- 
tion of  a twenty  or  twenty-five  years’  episcopate  of  Peter  in  Rome 
is  unquestionably  a colossal  chronological  mistake.1  Nor  can  we 
fix  the  year  of  his  martyrdom,  except  that  it  must  have  taken 
place  after  July,  64,  when  the  Neronian  persecution  broke  out 
(according  to  Tacitus).  It  is  variously  assigned  to  every  year 
between  64  and  69.  We  shall  return  to  it  again  below,  and  in 
connection  with  the  martyrdom  of  Paul,  with  which  it  is  associ- 
ated in  tradition.2 


1 Alzog  (§  48),  and  other  modern  Roman  church  historians  try  to  reconcile 
the  tradition  with  the  silence  of  the  Scripture  by  assuming  two  visits  of 
Peter  to  Rome  with  a great  interval. 

2 For  particulars  see  my  H Ap.  Ch.  pp.  3G2-372.  The  presence  of  Peter 
in  Rome  was  the  universal  belief  of  Christendom  till  the  Reformation,  and  is 
so  still  in  the  Roman  Catholic  communion.  It  was  denied  first  in  the  inter- 
est of  orthodox  Protestantism  against  Romanism  by  U.  Velenus  (1520),  M. 
Flacius  (1554),  Blondel  (1641),  Salraasius  (1645),  and  especially  by  Fr.  Span- 
heim  ( De  ficta  Profectione  Petri  in  urbem  Romam , Lugd.  B.  1679) ; more 
recently  in  the  interest  of  historical  criticism  by  Baur  (in  special  essays,  1831 
and  183G,  and  in  his  work  on  Paul \ ch.  IX  ),  K.  Hase  (1862.  doubtful  in  the 
10th  ed.  of  his  Kirchengesch.  1877,  p.  34),  Mayerhoff,  De  Wette,  Greenwood 
(1856),  Lipsius  (1869),  Volkmar  (1873),  Zeller  (1876).  Volkmar  denies  even 
the  martyrdom  of  Paul,  and  fancies  that  he  died  quietly  in  a villa  near  Rome. 
Zeller  (in  Hilgenf eld’s  “ Zeitschrift,”  for  1876,  p.  46  sq.)  was  disposed  to  suly 


§ 26.  PETEK  OF  IIISTOKY  AND  PETER  OF  FICTION.  253 


§ 26.  Tiie  Peter  of  History  and  the  Peter  of  Fiction. 

No  character  in  the  New  Testament  is  brought  before  us  in 
such  life-like  colors,  with  all  his  virtues  and  faults,  as  that  of 
Peter.  He  was  frank  and  transparent,  and  always  gave  him- 
self as  he  was,  without  any  reserve. 

We  may  distinguish  three  stages  in  his  development.  In  the 
Gospels,  the  human  nature  of  Simon  appears  most  prominent : 
the  Acts  unfold  the  divine  mission  of  Peter  in  the  founding  of 
the  church,  with  a temporary  relapse  at  Antioch  (recorded  by 
Paul) ; in  his  Epistles  we  see  the  complete  triumph  of  divine 
grace.  He  was  the  strongest  and  the  weakest  of  the  Twelve. 
He  had  all  the  excellences  and  all  the  defects  of  a sanguine 
temperament.  He  was  kind-hearted,  quick,  ardent,  hopeful, 

stitute  “ James  ” for  the  defective  name  “ Peter  ” in  the  testimony  of  Clemens 
Rom.,  Ad  Cor.  c.  5,  but  this  is  now  set  aside  by  the  edition  of  Bryennios 
from  a more  complete  manuscript,  which  clearly  reads  Uerpov  bs  in  full.  On  the 
other  hand  the  presence  and  martyrdom  of  Peter  in  Rome  is  affirmed  not  only 
by  all  the  Roman  Catholic,  but  also  by  many  eminent  Protestant  historians 
and  critics,  as  Bleek,  Credner,  Olshausen,  Gieseler,  Neander,  Niedner,  Rothe, 
Thiersch,  Krafft,  Ewald,  Plumptre,  and  even  by  Hilgenfeld,  who  justly  re- 
marks ( Einleitung  in  das  N.  T.  1875  p.  624) : “ Man  kann  ein  guter  Protes- 
tant se.in , wenn  man  den  Martyr ertod  des  Petrus  in  Rom  festhdlt. ” Renan  (in 
an  appendix  to  his  L’ Antechrist,  551  sqq.)  likewise  asserts  that  Peter  came  to 
Rome,  though  not  before  63,  and  was  among  the  victims  of  the  Neroaian  per- 
secution in  64,  whom  Tacitus  describes  as  crucibus  affixi.  He  understands 
“ Babylon,”  1 Pet.  5 : 13,  of  Rome,  according  to  the  secret  style  of  the  Chris- 
tians of  those  days. 

In  February,  1872,  after  the  downfall  of  the  temporal  power  of  the  papacy, 
a disputation  was  held  in  Rome  between  Protestant  ministers  (Gavazzi, 
Sciarelli,  and  Ribetto)  and  Roman  divines  (Guidi,  and  Canon  Fabianij  ou 
Peter’s  presence  in  that  city  ; the  former  denying,  the  latter  affirming  it.  The 
disputation  was  published  in  several  languages,  and  although  destitute  of 
critical  value,  it  derives  a sort  of  historical  significance  from  the  place  where 
it  was  held,  within  a short  distance  from  the  residence  of  Pius  IX. , the  first 
infallible  pope.  See  Racconto  autentico  della  disputa,  etc.,  Roma,  1872; 
Authentic  Report  of  the  Discussion  held  in  Rome , February  9 and  10,  1872,  be- 
tween Catholic  Priests  and  Evangelical  Ministers , concerning  the  Coming  of 
St.  Peter  to  Rome.  Translated  by  William  Arthur , London,  1872 ; and 
Romische  Disputation  zwischen  Kaiholiken  und  Protestanten  uber  die  These : 
War  Petrus  in  Rom  ? Nach  den  stenographischen  Berichten.  Deutsche  Ausg. 
Munster,  1872.  Comp,  the  review  of  Lipsius  in  the  “ Jahrbucher  fur  Protest. 
Theologie,”  1876,  Heft  4. 


254 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


impulsive,  changeable,  and  apt  to  run  from  one  extreme  to  an- 
other.  He  received  from  Christ  the  highest  praise  and  the 
severest  censure.  He  was  the  first  to  confess  him  as  the  Messiah 
of  God,  for  which  he  received  his  new  name  of  Peter,  in  pro- 
phetic anticipation  of  his  commanding  position  in  church  his- 
tory ; but  he  was  also  the  first  to  dissuade  him  from  entering 
the  path  of  the  cross  to  the  crown,  for  which  he  brought  upon 
himself  the  rebuke,  “ Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan.”  The  rock 
of  the  church  had  become  a rock  of  offence  and  a stumbling- 
block.  He  protested,  in  presumptive  modesty,  when  Christ 
would  wash  his  feet ; and  then,  suddenly  changing  his  mind, 
he  wished  not  his  feet  only,  but  his  hands  and  head  to  be 
washed.  He  cut  off  the  ear  of  Malchus  in  carnal  zeal  for  his 
Master ; and  in  a few  minutes  afterwards  he  forsook  him  and 
fled.  He  solemnly  promised  to  be  faithful  to  Christ,  though  all 
should  forsake  him  ; and  yet  in  the  same  night  he  betrayed  him 
thrice.  He  was  the  first  to  cast  off  the  Jewish  prejudices 
against  the  unclean  heathen  and  to  fraternize  with  the  Gentile 
converts  at  Caesarea  and  at  Antioch ; and  he  was  the  first  to 
withdraw  from  them  in  cowardly  fear  of  the  narrow-minded 
Judaizers  from  Jerusalem,  for  which  inconsistency  he  had  to 
submit  to  a humiliating  rebuke  of  Paul.1 

1 The  old  legend  of  Peter’s  flight  from  the  Mamertine  prison  in  Rome, 
which  seems  to  antedate  the  hierarchical  glorification  of  Peter,  would  prove 
that  his  “consistent  inconsistency”  overtook  him  once  more  at  the  close 
of  his  life.  A few  days  before  his  execution,  it  is  said,  he  bribed  the  jailor 
and  escaped  from  prison,  but  when  he  reached  a spot  outside  the  Porta 
San  Sebastiano,  now  marked  by  a chapel,  the  Lord  appeared  to  him  with  a 
cross,  and  Peter  asked  in  surprise  : 4 ‘ Lord,  whither  goest  thou  ( Domine  quo 
vadis ) ? ” Jesus  replied  : “ I go  to  Rome  to  be  crucified  again  (venio  Romam 
iterum  crudfigi ).”  The  disciple  returned  deeply  humbled,  and  delivered  him- 
self to  the  jailor  to  be  crucified  head-downwards.  The  footprint  of  the  Lord 
is  still  shown  (or  was  shown  in  1841,  when  I saw  it)  in  the  little  chapel  called 
“ Domine  quo  vadis,”  and  a rude  fresco  on  the  wall  represents  the  encounter. 
The  legend  is  first  alluded  to  by  Origen  (quoting  from  the  Ilpa|6ty  IlauAou  or 
TUrpov,  the  words  of  the  Saviour : ‘'Ai/w&ev  /itK \<a  (rravpu^rivai,  see  Opera  IV.  332, 
and  Hilgenfeld,  l.  c.  IV.  72),  then  fully  told  in  the  apocryphal  Acts  of  Peter  and 
Paul , c.  82  (Tischendorf,  l.  c.  p.  36,  where  Peter  asks,  Kvpic , nov  iroptvji ; and 
the  Lord  answers:  iv  ’Pdo/xri  airepxo/j.ai  aTavpw&rjvcu),  and  by  Ambrose  in  Sermo 
de  basilicis  non  tradendis  hcereticis  contra  Auxentium  (quoted  by  Lipsius,  Petrus - 
Sage , p.  134  sq.). 


§ 26.  THE  PETER  OF  HISTORY. 


255 


But  Peter  was  as  quick  in  returning  to  liis  right  position  as 
in  turning  away  from  it.  He  most  sincerely  loved  the  Lord 
from  the  start  and  had  no  rest  nor  peace  till  he  found  forgive- 
ness. With  all  his  weakness  he  was  a noble,  generous  soul,  and 
of  the  greatest  service  in  the  church.  God  overruled  his  very 
sins  and  inconsistencies  for  his  humiliation  and  spiritual  prog- 
ress. And  in  his  Epistles  we  find  the  mature  result  of  the 
work  of  purification,  a spirit  most  humble,  meek,  gentle,  tender, 
loving,  and  lovely.  Almost  every  word  and  incident  in  the 
gospel  history  connected  with  Peter  left  its  impress  upon  his 
Epistles  in  the  way  of  humble  or  thankful  reminiscence  and 
allusion.  His  new  name,  “ Bock,”  appears  simply  as  a “ stone  ” 
among  other  living  stones  in  the  temple  of  God,  built  upon 
Christ,  “ the  chief  corner-stone.” 1 His  charge  to  his  fellow- 
presbyters  is  the  same  which  Christ  gave  to  him  after  the  resur- 
rection, that  they  should  be  faithful  “ shepherds  of  the  flock  ” 
under  Christ,  the  chief  “ shepherd  and  bishop  of  their  souls.”  a 
The  record  of  his  denial  of  Christ  is  as  prominent  in  all  the 
four  Gospels,  as  Paul’s  persecution  of  the  church  is  in  the  Acts, 
and  it  is  most  prominent — as  it  would  seem  under  his  own 
direction — in  the  Gospel  of  his  pupil  and  “ interpreter  ” Mark, 
which  alone  mentions  the  two  cock-crows,  thus  doubling  the  guilt 
of  the  denial,3  and  which  records  Christ’s  words  of  censure 
(“  Satan  ”),  but  omits  Christ’s  praise  (“  Bock  ”)«4  Peter  made  as 
little  effort  to  conceal  his  great  sin,  as  Paul.  It  served  as  a 
thorn  in  his  flesh,  and  the  remembrance  kept  him  near  the 
cross ; while  his  recovery  from  the  fall  was  a standing  proof  of 

1 1 Pet.  2 : 4-8.  A striking  instance  of  the  impression  of  Christ’s  word 
without  a trace  of  boastfulness  and  assumption  of  authority. 

8 1 Pet.  5:2;  2 : 25  ; comp.  John  21  : 15-17. 

3 Mark  14  : 72.  “And  straightway  the  second  time  the  cock  crew.  And 
Peter  called  to  mind  the  word  how  that  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Before  the  cock 
crow  twice,  thou  shalt  deny  me  thrice  (comp.  ver.  30) ; and  when  he  thought 
thereon  he  wept.” 

4 Comp.  Mark  8 : 27-33  with  Matt.  16  : 13-23.  The  omission  of  the  famous 
passage,  “ Thou  art  Rock,”  etc.,  can  only  be  satisfactorily  explained  from  the 
humility  of  Peter.  An  enemy  or  rival  might  have  omitted  them,  but  Mark 
was  his  faithful  pupil,  and  would  have  mentioned  them  had  he  followed  his 
own  impulse,  or  had  he  been  a papist. 


256 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


the  power  and  mercy  of  Christ  and  a perpetual  call  to  gratitude. 
To  the  Christian  Church  the  double  story  of  Peter’s  denial  and 
recovery  has  been  ever  since  an  unfailing  source  of  warning  and 
comfort.  Having  turned  again  to  his  Lord,  who  prayed  for  him 
that  his  personal  faith  fail  not,  he  is  still  strengthening  the 
brethren.1 

As  to  his  official  position  in  the  church,  Peter  stood  from  the 
beginning  at  the  head  of  the  Jewish  apostles,  not  in  a partisan 
sense,  but  in  a large-hearted  spirit  of  moderation  and  compre- 
hension. He  never  was  a narrow,  contracted,  exclusive  secta- 
rian. After  the  vision  at  Joppa  and  the  conversion  of  Corne- 
lius he  promptly  changed  his  inherited  view  of  the  necessity  of 
circumcision,  and  openly  professed  the  change  at  Jerusalem, 
proclaiming  the  broad  principle  “ that  God  is  no  respecter  of 
persons,  but  in  every  nation  he  that  feareth  him  and  worketh 
righteousness  is  acceptable  to  him  ; ” and  “ that  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles alike  are  saved  only  through  the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.” 2 He  continued  to  be  the  head  of  the  Jewish  Christian 
church  at  large,  and  Paul  himself  represents  him  as  the  first 
among  the  three  “ pillar  ’’-apostles  of  the  circumcision.3  But 
he  stood  mediating  between  James,  who  represented  the  right 
wing  of  conservatism,  and  Paul,  who  commanded  the  left  wing 
of  the  apostolic  army.  And  this  is  precisely  the  position  which 
Peter  occupies  in  his  Epistles,  which  reproduce  to  a great  extent 
the  teaching  of  both  Paul  and  James,  and  have  therefore  the 
character  of  a doctrinal  Irenicum ; as  the  Acts  are  a historical 
Irenicum,  without  violation  of  truth  or  fact. 

The  Peter  of  Fiction. 

Ho  character  of  the  Bible,  we  may  say,  no  personage  in  all 
history,  has  been  so  much  magnified,  misrepresented  and  mis- 

1 Luke  22 : 31,  32,  spoken  in  view  of  the  approaching  denial.  This  is  the 
proper  meaning  of  the  passage  which  has  been  distorted  by  the  Vatican 
Council  into  an  argument  for  papal  infallibility.  Such  application  would 
logically  imply  also  that  every  pope  must  deny  Christ,  and  be  converted  in 
order  to  strengthen  the  brethren. 

2 Acts  10  : 34,  35  ; 15  : 11. 

3 Gal.  2 : 8,  9 ; comp.  1:18;  1 Cor.  15  : 5. 


§ 2G.  THE  PETER  OF  FICTION. 


257 


used  for  doctrinal  and  hierarchical  ends  as  the  plain  fisherman 
of  Galilee  who  stands  at  the  head  of  the  apostolic  college. 
Among  the  women  of  the  Bible  the  Virgin  Mary  has  under- 
gone a similar  transformation  for  purposes  of  devotion,  and 
raised  to  the  dignity  of  the  queen  of  heaven.  Peter  as  the 
Vicar  of  Christ,  and  Mary  as  the  mother  of  Christ,  have  in 
this  idealized  shape  become  and  are  still  the  ruling  powers  in 
the  polity  and  worship  of  the  largest  branch  of  Christen- 
dom. 

In  both  cases  the  work  of  fiction  began  among  the  Judaizing 
heretical  sects  of  the  second  and  third  centuries,  but  was  modi- 
fied and  carried  forward  by  the  Catholic,  especially  the  Homan 
church,  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries. 

1.  The  Peter  of  the  Ebionite  fiction.  The  historical  basis  is 
Peter’s  encounter  with  Simon  Magus  in  Samaria,1  Paul’s  rebuke 
of  Peter  at  Antioch,2 3  and  the  intense  distrust  and  dislike  of  the 
Judaizing  party  to  Paul.8  These  three  undoubted  facts,  together 
with  a singular  confusion  of  Simon  Magus  with  an  old  Sabine 
deity,  Semo  Sanous , in  Home,4 * * *  furnished  the  material  and 
prompted  the  motive  to  religious  tendency-novels  written  about 
and  after  the  middle  of  the  second  century  by  ingenious  semi- 
Gnostic  Ebionites,  either  anonymously  or  under  the  fictitious 


1 Acts  8 : 9-24.  It  is  quite  probable  that  in  the  description  of  the  heretics 
in  his  second  Epistle,  Peter  had  in  mind  Simon  Magus.  Plumptre  (1.  c.  p. 
44)  sees  in  the  “ great  swelling  words  of  vanity,”  2 Pet.  2 : 18,  an  allusion  to 
Simon’s  boast  that  he  was  “ the  Great  Power  of  God  ” (Acts  8 : 9,  10),  and  in 
the  words  “ having  eyes  full  of  an  adulteress ,”  etc.  2 Pet.  2 : 12-14,  an  allu- 
sion to  Helena,  the  mistress  of  Simon,  who  is  said  to  have  accompanied 
him. 

2 Gal.  2 : 11-14. 

3 This  is  clear  from  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  especially  the  Galatians  and  Co- 
rinthians, and  from  the  21st  ch.  of  Acts. 

4 Justin  Martyr  (Apol.  I.  c.  26  and  56)  reports  that  Simon  Magus  went  to 
Rome  under  Claudius  and  received  divine  honors  there,  as  was  shown  by  a 
statue  erected  to  him  on  an  island  in  the  Tiber.  Such  a statue  was  actually 
discovered  in  1574,  but  with  the  inscription  Sernoni  Sanco  Deo  Fidio  sacrum, 

[not  Simoni  Deo  sancto ].  With  reference  to  this  supposed  worship,  Simon 

boasts  in  the  pseudo- Clementine  Recogn.  II.  9 : “ Adorn, dor  ut  deus , publicis 

divinis  donabor  hmwribus,  ita  ut  sirrudacrum  milii  statuentes  tanquam  deum 

eolant  et  adorentV 


258 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


name  of  Clement  of  Rome,  the  reputed  successor  of  Peter.1 
In  these  productions  Simon  Peter  appears  as  the  great  apos- 
tle of  truth  in  conflict  with  Simon  Magus,  the  pseudo-apostle 
of  falsehood,  the  father  of  all  heresies,  the  Samaritan  pos- 
sessed by  a demon ; and  Peter  follows  him  step  by  step  from 
Caesarea  Stratonis  to  Tyre,  Sidon,  Berytus,  Antioch,  and  Rome, 
and  before  the  tribunal  of  Nero,  disputing  with  him,  and 
refuting  his  errors,  until  at  last  the  impostor,  in  the  daring 
act  of  mocking  Christ’s  ascension  to  heaven,  meets  a miserable 
end. 

In  the  pseudo-Clementine  Homilies  the  name  of  Simon  repre- 
sents among  other  heresies  also  the  free  gospel  of  Paul,  who  is 
assailed  as  a false  apostle  and  hated  rebel  against  the  authority 
of  the  Mosaic  law.  The  same  charges  which  the  Judaizers 
brought  against  Paul,  are  here  brought  by  Peter  against  Simon 
Magus,  especially  the  assertion  that  one  may  be  saved  by  grace 
alone.  His  boasted  vision  of  Christ  by  which  he  professed  to 
have  been  converted,  is  traced  to  a deceptive  vision  of  the 
devil.  The  very  words  of  Paul  against  Peter  at  Antioch,  that 
he  was  “ self-condemned  ” (Gal.  2:11),  are  quoted  as  an  accusa- 
tion against  God.  In  one  word,  Simon  Magus  is,  in  part  at 
least,  a malignant  Judaizing  caricature  of  the  apostle  of  the 
Gentiles. 

2.  The  Peter  of  the  Pcvpacy.  The  orthodox  version  of  the 
Peter-legend,  as  we  find  it  partly  in  patristic  notices  of  Irengeus, 
Origen,  Tertullian,  and  Eusebius,  partly  in  apocryphal  produc- 

1 The  chief  of  these  productions  are  the  twenty  Greek  pseudo-Clementine 
Homilies , which  are  based  upon  the  older  Kij pvyfxa  Uerpov  and  other  Jewish- 
Christian  documents.  See  the  ed.  of  Dressel : dementis  Romani  quce  ferun- 
tur  Homilice  viginti  nunc  prinum  integral,  Gott.  1853  (429  pages),  and  of  De 
Lagarde,  Clementina , 1865.  The  Clementine  literature  has  been  thoroughly 
investigated  by  Baur,  Hilgenfeld,  Ritschl,  Schliemann,  Uhlhorn,  Volkmar, 
and  Lipsius.  See  a brief  resume  in  Baur’s  Kirchengesch.  vol.  I.  85-94.  Baur 
first  tried  to  prove  the  identity  of  Simon  Magus  with  Paul,  in  his  essay  on 
the  Christuspartei  in  der  Korinthischen  Gemeinde , Tubingen,  1831.  But  Simon 
is  a more  comprehensive  representative  of  all  anti-Jewish  and  Gnostic  here- 
sies, especially  that  of  Marcion.  If  he  were  meant  to  represent  Paul  alone,  the 
author  would  not  have  retained  the  historic  features  from  Acts,  ch.  8,  which 
are  entirely  irreconcilable  with  Paul’s  well  known  history. 


§ 26.  TIIE  PETER  OF  FICTION. 


259 


turns,1  retains  the  general  story  of  a conflict  of  Peter  with  Simon 
Magus  in  Antioch  and  Rome,  but  extracts  from  it  its  anti-Pau- 
line poison,  associates  Paul  at  the  end  of  his  life  with  Peter  as 
the  joint,  though  secondary,  founder  of  the  Roman  church,  and 
Honors  both  with  the  martyr’s  crown  in  the  Neronian  persecu- 
tion on  the  same  day  (the  29th  of  June),  and  in  the  same  year 
or  a year  apart,  but  in  different  localities  and  in  a different  man- 
ner.3 Peter  was  crucified  like  his  Master  (though  head-down- 
wards  s),  either  on  the  hill  of  J aniculum  (where  the  church  S. 
Pietro  in  Montorio  stands),  or  more  probably  on  the  Y atican  hill 
(the  scene  of  the  Neronian  circus  and  persecution) ; 4 Paul,  being 
a Roman  citizen,  was  beheaded  on  the  Ostian  way  at  the  Three 
Fountains  (Tre  Fontane),  outside  of  the  city.  They  even  walked 
together  a part  of  the  Appian  way  to  the  place  of  execution. 
Caius  (or  Gaius),  a Roman  presbyter  at  the  close  of  the  second 
century,  pointed  to  their  monuments  or  trophies5  on  the  Vati- 
can, and  in  the  via  Ostia.  The  solemn  burial  of  the  remains  of 
Peter  in  the  catacombs  of  San  Sebastiano,  and  of  Paul  on  the  Via 
Ostia,  took  place  June  29,  258,  according  to  the  Ivalendarium  of 
the  Roman  church  from  the  time  of  Liberius.  A hundred 

1 Such  as  the  lost  K^pvyua  Tlerpov  iv  'Pdop-y,  and  the  Prcedicatio  Pauli  (proba- 
bly one  book),  used  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  ; the  Syriac  Sermon  of  Peter  in 
Rome  (in  Curston’s  “Ancient  Syriac  Doc.,”  Lond.  1864)  ; the  Acta  Pauli,  used 
by  Origen  and  Eusebius ; the  Acts  of  Peter  and  Paul , of  a later  date,  pub- 
lished by  Thilo  and  Tischendorf.  The  last  book  has  a conciliatory  tendency, 
like  the  canonical  Acts.  Comp.  Lipsius,  l.  c.  pp.  47  sqq.,  and  the  fragments 
collected  by  Hilgenfeld,  l.  c.  IY.  52  sqq. 

* The  month  is  given  in  the  Acta  Petri  et  Pauli  at  the  close  : 'EreAeui&^crcu' 
oi  ayioi  e»/5 o|ot  o.tt6<ttoKol  neVpos  KaX  IlauAos  /xtjvl  'lovvtcp  k&.  But  different  MSS. 
give  July  second  or  eighth.  See  Tischendorf,  l.  c.  p.  39.  According  to  Pru- 
dentius  ( Hymn . 12)  the  two  apostles  suffered  on  the  same  day,  but  a year 
apart : 

“ Unus  utrumque  dies,  pleno  tamen  innovatus  anno , 

Vidit  superba  morte  laureatum .” 

3 A bishop  of  the  Vatican  Council  used  this  as  an  argument  for  papal  abso- 
lutism and  infallibility,  inasmuch  as  Peter’s  head  supported  his  body,  and  not 
the  body  the  head  ! 

4 Baronius,  Ad  ann.  69  (in  Theiner’s  ed.  vol.  I.  594  sq.)  reconciles  this  differ- 
ence by  making  the  Janiculum  and  the  Vatican  one  hill  extending  to  the 
Milvian  bridge. 

6 rpoiraua,  Euseb.  H.  E.  II.  25. 


260 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


years  later  the  remains  of  Peter  were  permanently  transferred 
to  the  Basilica  of  St.  Peter  on  the  Vatican,  those  of  St.  Paul  to 
the  Basilica  of  St.  Paul  (San  Paolo  fuori  le  mura)  outside  of 
the  Porta  Ostiensis  (now  Porta  San  Paolo).1 

The  tradition  of  a twenty-five  years’  episcopate  in  Home  (pre- 
ceded by  a seven  years’  episcopate  in  Antioch)  cannot  be  traced 
beyond  the  fourth  century  (Jerome),  and  arose,  as  already  re- 
marked, from  chronological  miscalculations  in  connection  with 
the  questionable  statement  of  Justin  Martyr  concerning  the  arri- 
val of  Simon  Magus  in  Rome  under  the  reign  of  Claudius  (41- 
54).  The  “Catalogus  Liberianus,”  the  oldest  list  of  popes 
(supposed  to  have  been  written  before  366),  extends  the  pontifi- 
cate of  Peter  to  25  years,  1 month,  9 days,  and  puts  his  death 
on  June  29,  65  (during  the  consulate  of  Herva  and  Vestinus), 
which  would  date  his  arrival  in  Rome  back  to  a.d.  40.  Euse- 
bius, in  his  Greek  Chronicle  as  far  as  it  is  preserved,  does  not 
fix  the  number  of  years,  but  says,  in  his  Church  History,  that 
Peter  came  to  Rome  in  the  reign  of  Claudius  to  preach  against 
the  pestilential  errors  of  Simon  Magus.2  The  Armenian  trans- 
lation of  his  Chronicle  mentions  “ twenty  ” years ; 3 Jerome,  in 
his  translation  or  paraphrase  rather,  “ twenty-five  ” years,  assum- 
ing, without  warrant,  that  Peter  left  Jerusalem  for  Antioch  and 
Rome  in  the  second  year  of  Claudius  (42  ; but  Acts  12:17 
would  rather  point  to  the  year  44),  and  died  in  the  fourteenth 
or  last  year  of  Hero  (68).4  Among  modem  Roman  Catholic 


1 See  Lipsius,  l c.  pp.  96  sqq.,  and  his  Chronologie  der  rom.  Pdpste , pp. 
49  sqq. 

2 Hist.  Ecd.  II.  14.  His  statement  is  merely  an  inference  from  Justin  Mar- 
tyr s story  about  Simon  Magus,  which  he  quotes  in  ch.  13.  But  Justin  M. 
says  nothing  about  Simon  Peter  in  that  connection. 

3 “Petrus  apostolus,  cum  primum  Antiochenam  ecclesiam  fundasset , Romano- 
rum  urbem  projiciscitur,  ibique  evangelium  prcedicat,  et  commoratur  illic  antistes 
ecclesice  annis  viglnti.” 

4 Ghr. , ad  ann.  44  : “ Petrus  . . . cum  primum  Antiochenam  ecclesiam  fun- 
dasset, Romam  projiciscitur , ubi  evangelium  prmdicans  25  annis  ejusdem  urbis 
episcopus  perseverat .”  In  De  viris  illustr.  cap.  I , Jerome  omits  Antioch  and 
says  : “ Simon  Petrus  . . . secundo  Glaudiiimperatoris  anno,  ad  expugnandum 
Simonem  Magum,  Romam  per  git,  ibique  viginti  quinque  annis  Cathedram 
Sacerdotalem  tenuit,  usque  ad  ultimum  annum  Neronis , id  est,  decimum  quar- 


§ 26.  THE  PETER  OF  FICTION. 


261 


historians  there  is  no  agreement  as  to  the  year  of  Peter’s  mar- 
tyrdom : Baronins  puts  it  in  69 ; 1 Pagi  and  Alban  Butler  in 
65 ; Mbliler,  Gams,  and  Alzog  indefinitely  between  66  and  68. 
In  all  these  cases  it  must  be  assumed  that  the  Neronian  per- 
secution was  continued  or  renewed  after  64,  of  which  we  have 
no  historical  evidence.  It  must  also  be  assumed  that  Peter 
was  conspicuously  absent  from  his  flock  during  most  of  the 
time,  to  superintend  the  churches  in  Asia  Minor  and  in  Syria, 
to  preside  at  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  to  meet  with  Paul  in 
Antioch,  to  travel  about  with  his  wife,  and  that  he  made  very 
little  impression  there  till  58,  and  even  till  63,  when  Paul,  writ- 
ing to  and  from  Borne,  still  entirely  ignores  him.  Thus  a 
chronological  error  is  made  to  overrule  stubborn  facts.  The 
famous  saying  that  “ no  pope  shall  see  the  (twenty -five)  years  of 
Peter,”  which  had  hitherto  almost  the  force  of  law,  has  been 
falsified  by  the  thirty-two  years’  reign  of  the  first  infallible 
pope,  Pius  IX.,  who  ruled  from  1846  to  1878. 


Note. — On  the  Claims  of  the  Papacy. 

On  this  tradition  and  on  the  indisputable  preeminence  of  Peter  in  the 
Gospels  and  the  Acts,  especially  the  words  of  Christ  to  him  after  the 
great  confession  (Matt.  16  : 18),  is  built  the  colossal  fabric  of  the  papacy 
with  all  its  amazing  pretensions  to  be  the  legitimate  succession  of  a per- 
manent primacy  of  honor  and  supremacy  of  jurisdiction  in  the  church  of 
Christ,  and — since  1870 — with  the  additional  claim  of  papal  infallibility 
in  all  official  utterances,  doctrinal  or  moral.  The  validity  of  this  claim 
requires  three  premises  : 

1.  The  presence  of  Peter  in  Rome.  This  may  be  admitted  as  an  his- 
torical fact,  and  I for  my  part  cannot  believe  it  possible  that  such  a rock- 
firm  and  world-wide  structure  as  the  papacy  could  rest  on  the  sand  of 
mere  fraud  and  error.  It  is  the  underlying  fact  which  gives  to  fiction  its 
vitality,  and  error  is  dangerous  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  truth 
which  it  embodies.  But  the  fact  of  Peter’s  presence  in  Rome,  whether  of 
one  year  or  twenty-five,  cannot  be  of  such  fundamental  importance  as  the 

turn.  A quo  et  affixus  cruci , martyrio  coronatus  est,  capite  ad  terrain  verso , et 
in  sublime  pedibus  elemtis : asserens  se  indignum  qui  sic  crucijigeretur  ut 
Dominus  suus.  ” 

1 Annul,  ad  ann.  69.  Tom.  I.  590,  comp.  I.  272,  ed.  Theiner. 


262 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


papacy  assumes  it  to  be  : otherwise  we  would  certainly  have  some  allusion 
to  it  in  the  New  Testament.  Moreover,  if  Peter  was  in  Rome,  so  was  Paul, 
and  shared  with  him  on  equal  terms  the  apostolic  supervision  of  the 
Roman  congregation,  as  is  very  evident  from  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

2.  The  transferability  of  Peter’s  preeminence  on  a successor.  This  is 
derived  by  inference  from  the  words  of  Christ : “ Thou  art  Rock,  and  on 
this  rock  I will  build  my  church,  and  the  gates  of  Hades  shall  not 
prevail  against  it.”  1 This  passage,  recorded  only  by  Matthew,  is  the 
exegetical  rock  of  Romanism,  and  more  frequently  quoted  by  popes  and 
papists  than  any  other  passage  of  the  Scriptures.  But  admitting  the 
obvious  reference  of  petra  to  Peter , the  significance  of  this  prophetic  name 
evidently  refers  to  the  peculiar  mission  of  Peter  in  laying  the  foundation 
of  the  church  once  and  for  all  time  to  come.  He  fulfilled  it  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost  and  in  the  conversion  of  Cornelius ; and  in  this  pioneer 
work  Peter  can  have  no  successor  any  more  than  St.  Paul  in  the  conver- 
sion of  the  Gentiles,  and  John  in  the  consolidation  of  the  two  branches 
of  the  apostolic  church. 

3.  The  actual  transfer  of  this  prerogative  of  Peter — not  upon  the  bishops 
of  Jerusalem,  or  Antioch,  where  he  undoubtedly  resided — but  upon  the 
bishop  of  Rome,  where  he  cannot  be  proven  to  have  been  from  the  New 
Testament.  Of  such  a transfer  history  knows  absolutely  nothing. 
Clement,  bishop  of  Rome,  who  first,  about  a.d.  95,  makes  mention  of 
Peter’s  martyrdom,  and  Ignatius  of  Antioch,  who  a few  years  later  alludes 
to  Peter  and  Paul  as  exhorting  the  Romans,  have  not  a word  to  say 
about  the  transfer.  The  very  chronology  and  succession  of  the  first 
popes  is  uncertain. 

If  the  claims  of  the  papacy  cannot  be  proven  from  what  we  know  of 
the  historical  Peter,  there  are,  on  the  other  hand,  several  undoubted 
facts  in  the  real  history  of  Peter  which  bear  heavily  upon  those  claims, 
namely : 

1.  That  Peter  was  married,  Matt.  8 : 14,  took  his  wife  with  him  on  his 
missionary  tours,  1 Cor.  9 : 5,  and,  according  to  a possible  interpretation 
of  the  “coelect”  (sister),  mentions  her  in  his  first  Epistle  (5:13). 
Patristic  tradition  ascribes  to  him  children,  or  at  least  a daughter  (Petro- 
nilla).  His  wife  is  said  to  have  suffered  martyrdom  in  Rome  before  him. 
What  right  have  the  popes,  in  view  of  this  example,  to  forbid  clerical 

1 Some  Protestant  Writers  press,  in  Matt.  16  : 18,  the  distinction  between 
r Urposy  stone , and  tt erpa,  rock,  which  disappears  in  the  translations,  but  this 
does  not  apply  to  the  Aramaic  Gepha,  which  was  used  by  Christ,  comp.  John 
1 : 42  ; Gal.  2 : 9 ; 1 Cor.  1:12;  3 : 22  ; 9:5;  15  : 5 (and  which,  by  the  way, 
has  analogies  not  only  in  Semitic  but  also  in  Aryan  languages,  as  the  San- 
skrit kap-ala,  the  Greek  KffraX-fi,  the  Latin  cap-ut , the  German  Ropf  and 
Gipfel).  On  the  interpretation  of  the  famous  passage  in  Matthew,  see  my 
annotations  to  Lange  on  Matthew,  pp.  293  sqq.,  and  my  H.  Ap.  Ch .,  pp. 
351  sqq. 


§ 26.  THE  PETER  OF  FICTION. 


263 


marriage  ? Wo  pass  by  the  equally  striking  contrast  between  the  poverty 
of  Peter,  who  had  no  silver  nor  gold  (Acts  3 : 6)  and  the  gorgeous  display 
of  the  triple-crowned  papacy  in  the  middle  ages  and  down  to  the  recent 
collapse  of  the  temporal  power. 

2.  That  in  the  Council  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  15  : 1-11),  Peter  appears 
simply  as  the  first  speaker  and  debater,  not  as  president  and  judge 
(James  presided),  and  assumes  no  special  prerogative,  least  of  all  an 
infallibility  of  judgment.  According  to  the  Vatican  theory  the  whole 
question  of  circumcision  ought  to  have  been  submitted  to  Peter  rather 
than  to  a Council,  and  the  decision  ought  to  have  gone  out  from  him  rather 
than  from  “ the  apostles  and  elders,  brethren  ” (or  “ the  elder  brethren,” 
ver.  23). 

3.  That  Peter  was  openly  rebuked  for  inconsistency  by  a younger 
apostle  at  Antioch  (Gal.  2 : 11-14).  Peter’s  conduct  on  that  occasion  is 
irreconcilable  with  his  infallibility  as  to  discipline ; Paul’s  conduct  is 
irreconcilable  with  Peter’s  alleged  supremacy ; and  the  whole  scene, 
though  perfectly  plain,  is  so  inconvenient  to  Roman  and  Romanizing 
views,  that  it  has  been  variously  distorted  by  patristic  and  Jesuit  com- 
mentators, even  into  a theatrical  farce  gotten  up  by  the  apostles  for  the 
more  effectual  refutation  of  the  Judaizers ! 

4.  That,  while  the  greatest  of  popes,  from  Leo  I.  down  to  Leo  XIII. 
never  cease  to  speak  of  their  authority  over  all  the  bishops  and  all  the 
churches,  Peter,  in  his  speeches  in  the  Acts,  never  does  so.  And  his  Epis- 
tles, far  from  assuming  any  superiority  over  his  “ fellow-elders”  and  over 
“the  clergy”  (by  which  he  means  the  Christian  people),  breathe  the 
spirit  of  the  sincerest  humility  and  contain  a prophetic  warning  against 
the  besetting  sins  of  the  papacy,  filthy  avarice  and  lordly  ambition 
(1  Pet.  5 : 1-3).  Love  of  money  and  love  of  power  are  twin-sisters,  and 
either  of  them  is  “ a root  of  all  evil.” 

It  is  certainly  very  significant  that  the  weaknesses  even  more  than  the 
virtues  of  the  natural  Peter — his  boldness  and  presumption,  his  dread  of 
the  cross,  his  love  for  secular  glory,  his  carnal  zeal,  his  use  of  the  sword, 
his  sleepiness  in  Gethsemane — are  faithfully  reproduced  in  the  history 
of  the  papacy ; while  the  addresses  and  epistles  of  the  converted  and  in- 
spired Peter  contain  the  most  emphatic  protest  against  the  hierarchical 
pretensions  and  worldly  vices  of  the  papacy,  and  enjoin  truly  evangelical 
principles — the  general  priesthood  and  royalty  of  believers,  apostolic 
poverty  before  the  rich  temple,  obedience  to  God  rather  than  man,  yet 
with  proper  regard  for  the  civil  authorities,  honorable  marriage,  con- 
demnation of  mental  reservation  in  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  and  of  simony 
in  Simon  Magus,  liberal  appreciation  of  heathen  piety  in  Cornelius,  op- 
position to  the  yoke  of  legal  bondage,  salvation  in  no  other  name  but 
that  of  Jesus  Christ. 


26  4 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


§ 27~  James , the  Brother  of  the  Lord, 

*H  Tricrns  x«ph  Zpycov  veupa  iarnv. — James  2 : 26. 

Sources. 

I.  Genuine  sources  : Acts  12  : 17 ; 15  : 13 ; 21  : 18 ; 1 Cor.  15  : 7 ; GaL 

1 : 19 ; 2:9,  12.  Comp.  James  “ the  brother  of  the  Lord,”  Matt. 
13  : 55  ; Mark  6:3;  Gal.  1 : 19. 

The  Epistle  of  James. 

II.  Post-apostolic  : Josephus  : Ant.  XX.  9,  1.— Hegesippus  in  Euseb. 
Hist.  Ecc.  II.  ch.  23. — Jerome:  Catal.  vir.  ill.  c.  2,  under  “Jacobus.11 
Epiphanius,  Herr.  XXIX.  4 ; XXX.  16 ; LXXVIII.  13  sq. 

III.  Apocryphal : Protevangelium  Jacobi , ed.  in  Greek  by  Tischendorf, 
in  “Evangelia  Apocrypha,”  pp.  1-49,  comp,  the  Prolegg.  pp.  xii- 
xxv.  James  is  honorably  mentioned  in  several  other  apocryphal 
Gospels.— Epiphanius,  Hcer.  XXX.  16,  alludes  to  an  Ebionite  and 
strongly  anti-Pauline  book,  the  Ascents  of  James  ('Ava&ftyo'i  'hiKufiov), 
descriptions  of  his  ascension  to  heaven,  which  are  lost. — The  Liturgy 
of  James,  ed.  by  W.  Trollope,  Edinb.  1848.  Composed  in  the  third 
century,  after  the  Council  of  Nicaea  (as  it  contains  the  terms  n^onvaios 
and  SforoKos),  but  resting  on  some  older  traditions.  It  was  intended 
for  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  which  is  styled  “the  mother  of  all 
churches.”  It  is  still  used  once  a year  on  the  festival  of  St.  James, 
Oct.  23,  in  the  Greek  Church  at  Jerusalem.  (See  vol.  II.  527  sqq.) 

ExEGETICAIi  AND  DOCTRINAL. 

Commentaries  on  the  Epistle  of  James  by  Herder  (1775),  Storr  (1784), 
Gebser  (1828),  Schneckenburger  (1832),  Theile  (1833),  Kern 
(1838),  De  Wette  (1849,  3d  ed.  by  Bruckner,  1865),  Cellerier 
(1850),  Wiesinger  (in  Olshausen’s  Com.,  1854),  Steer  (1845),  Huther 
and  Beyschlag  (in  Meyer’s  Com.,  1858,  4th  ed.  1882),  Lange  and 
Van  Oosterzee  (in  Lange’s  Bibelwei'k,  1862,  Engl,  transl.  enlarged  by 
Mombert,  1867),  Alford,  Wordsworth,  Bassett  (1876,  ascribes  the 
Ep.  to  James  of  Zebedee),  Plumptre  (in  the  Cambridge  series,  1878), 
Punchard  (in  Ellicott’s  Com.  1878),  Erdmann  (1882),  Gloag  (1883). 

Woldemar  G.  Schmidt  : Her  Lehrgehalt  des  Jakobusbriefes.  Leipzig, 
1869. 

W.  Beyschlag  : Her  Jakobusbrief  als  urchristliches  Geschichtsdenkmal. 
In  the  “ Stud.  u.  Kritiken,”  1874,  No.  1,  pp.  105-166.  See  his  Com. 

Comp,  also  the  expositions  of  the  doctrinal  type  of  James  in  Neander, 

Schmid,  Schaff,  Weiss  (pp.  176-194,  third  ed.). 

Historical  and  Critical. 

Blom  : He  rdis  fi6eX$<ns  et  rulv  ubt\(f).us  tov  Kvptov.  Leyden,  1839.  (I 
have  not  seen  this  tract,  which  advocates  the  brother-theory.  Light- 


§ 27.  JAMES,  THE  BROTHER  OF  THE  LORD.  265 


foot  says  of  it : “ Blom  gives  the  most  satisfactory  statement  of  the 
patristic  authorities,  and  Schaff  discusses  the  scriptural  arguments 
most  carefully.”) 

Schaff  : Jakobus  Alphai , und  Jakobus  der  Druder  des  Hen'n.  Berlin, 
1842  (101  pages). 

Mill  : The  Accounts  of  our  Lord's  Brethren  in  the  New  Test,  vindicated. 

Cambridge,  1843.  (Advocates  the  cousin-theory  of  the  Latin  church.) 
Lightfoot  : The  Brethren  of  the  Lard.  Excursus  in  his  Coin,  on  Gala- 
tians. Lond.  2d  ed.  1866,  pp.  247-282.  (The  ablest  defence  of  the 
step-brother-theory  of  the  Greek  Church.) 

H.  Holtzmann  : Jakobus  der  Gerechte  und  seine  Namensbrudei',  in  Hilgen- 
feld’s  “Zeitschrift  fur  wissenschaftl.  Theol.”  Leipz.  1880,  No.  2. 

Next  to  Peter,  wlio  was  the  oecumenical  leader  of  Jewish 
Christianity,  stands  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord  (also  called 
by  post-apostolic  writers  “ James  the  Just,”  and  “ Bisiiop  of 
Jerusalem”),  as  the  local  head  of  the  oldest  church  and  the 
leader  of  the  most  conservative  portion  of  Jewish  Christianity. 
He  seems  to  have  taken  the  place  of  James  the  son  of  Zebedee, 
after  his  martyrdom,  a.d.  44.  He  became,  with  Peter  and  John, 
one  of  the  three  “ pillars  ” of  the  church  of  the  circumcision. 
And  after  the  departure  of  Peter  from  Jerusalem  James  pre- 
sided over  the  mother  church  of  Christendom  until  his  death. 
Though  not  one  of  the  Twelve,  he  enjoyed,  owing  to  his  rela- 
tionship to  our  Lord  and  his  commanding  piety,  almost  apostolic 
authority,  especially  in  Judaea  and  among  the  Jewish  converts.' 
On  one  occasion  even  Peter  yielded  to  his  influence  or  that  of 
his  representatives,  and  was  misled  into  his  uncharitable  conduct 
towards  the  Gentile  brethren.1 2 

James  was  not  a believer  before  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord. 
He  was  the  oldest  of  the  four  “ brethren  ” (James,  Joseph,  Judas, 
Simon),  of  whom  John  reports  with  touching  sadness  : “ Even 
his  brethren  did  not  believe  in  him.” 3 It  was  one  of  the  early 
and  constant  trials  of  our  Lord  in  the  days  of  his  humiliation 
that  he  was  without  honor  among  his  fellow-townsmen,  yea, 

1 On  his  relation  to  the  Twelve  and  to  Jesus,  see  the  first  note  at  the  end 

of  this  section. 

3 Gal.  2 : 12. 

5 Mark  6:3;  Matt.  13:55;  John  7 : 5. 


266 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


“ among  his  own  kin,  and  in  his  own  house.” 1 2 James  was  no 
doubt  imbued  with  the  temporal  and  carnal  Messianic  miscon- 
ceptions of  the  Jews,  and  impatient  at  the  delay  and  unworldli- 
ness of  his  divine  brother.  Hence  the  taunting  and  almost  dis- 
respectful language : “ Depart  hence  and  go  into  Judaea  .... 
If  thou  doest  these  things,  manifest  thyself  to  the  world.”  The 
crucifixion  could  only  deepen  his  doubt  and  sadness. 

But  a special  personal  appearance  of  the  risen  Lord  brought 
about  his  conversion,  as  also  that  of  his  brothers,  who  after 
tiie  resurrection  appear  in  the  company  of  the  apostles.*  This 
turning-point  in  his  life  is  briefly  but  significantly  alluded  to 
by  Paul,  who  himself  was  converted  by  a personal  appearance 
of  Christ.3  It  is  more  fully  reported  in  an  interesting  fragment 
of  the  “ Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  ” (one  of  the  oldest 
and  least  fabulous  of  the  apocryphal  Gospels),  which  shows  the 
sincerity  and  earnestness  of  James  even  before  his  conversion.4 5 
He  had  sworn,  we  are  here  told,  “ that  he  would  not  eat  bread 
from  that  hour  wherein  the  Lord  had  drunk  the  cup  [of  his 
passion]  6 until  he  should  see  him  rising  from  the  dead.”  The 
Lord  appeared  to  him  and  communed  with  him,  giving  bread  to 
James  the  Just  and  saying:  “My  brother,  eat  thy  bread,  for 
the  Son  of  man  is  risen  from  them  that  sleep.” 

1 Mark  6:4;  Matt.  13  : 57  ; Luke  4 : 24  ; John  4 : 44. 

2 Acts  1 : 13  ; comp.  1 Cor.  9 : 5. 

3 1 Cor.  15:7:  eireira  tixp&t)  'laKufico. 

4 The  fragment  is  preserved  by  Jerome,  De  vir.  ill.  cap.  2.  Comp.  Hilgen- 
feld,  Nov.  Test,  extra  can.  rec.  IV.  17  and  29  ; and  Nicholson,  The  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews  (1879),  pp.  63  sqq. 

5 I follow  here  with  Credner  and  Lightfoot  the  reading  Dominus  for  Domini , 
corresponding  to  the  Greek  translation,  which  reads  6 svptos , and  with  the 
context,  which  points  to  the  Lord’s  death  rather  than  the  Lord’s  Supper  as 
the  starting-point  of  the  vow.  See  Lightfoot,  Ep.  to  the  Gal.,  p.  266.  If  we 
read  “ hora  qua  biberat  calicem  Domini,”  the  author  of  the  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews  must  have  assumed  either  that  James  was  one  with  James  of 

Alphaeus,  or  that  the  Lord’s  Supper  was  not  confined  to  the  twelve  apostles. 
Neither  of  these  is  probable.  James  is  immediately  afterwards  called  “the 
Just.”  Gregory  of  Tours  ( Ilistor . Francorum , I.  21),  relating  this  story, 
adds,  in  accordance  with  the  Greek  tradition  : “ Ilic  est  Jacobus  Justus,  quern 
fratrem  Domini  nuncupant , pro  eo  quod  Joseplii  fuerit  filius  ex  alia  uxore  pra 
genitus .”  See  Nicholson,  p.  64. 


§ 27.  JAMES,  TIIE  BROTHER  OF  TIIE  LORD.  267 

In  the  Acts  and  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  James  appears 
as  the  most  conservative  of  the  Jewish  converts,  at  the  head  of 
the  extreme  right  wing  ; yet  recognizing  Paul  as  the  apostle  of 
the  Gentiles,  giving  him  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  as  Paul 
himself  reports,  and  unwilling  to  impose  upon  the  Gentilo 
Christians  the  yoke  of  circumcision.  He  must  therefore  not  be 
identified  with  the  heretical  Judaizers  (the  forerunners  of  the 
Ebionites),  who  hated  and  opposed  Paul,  and  made  circumcision 
a condition  of  justification  and  church  membership.  lie  pre- 
sided at  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  and  proposed  the  compromise 
which  saved  a split  in  the  church.  He  probably  prepared  the 
synodical  letter  which  agrees  with  his  style  and  has  the  same 
greeting  formula  peculiar  to  him.1 

He  was  an  honest,  conscientious,  eminently  practical,  concili- 
atory Jewish  Christian  saint,  the  right  man  in  the  right  place 
and  at  the  right  time,  although  contracted  in  his  mental  vision 
as  in  his  local  sphere  of  labor. 

From  an  incidental  remark  of  Paul  we  may  infer  that  James, 
like  Peter  and  the  other  brothers  of  the  Lord,  was  married.2 

The  mission  of  James  was  evidently  to  stand  in  the  breach 
between  the  synagogue  and  the  church,  and  to  lead  the  disciples 
of  Moses  gently  to  Christ.  He  was  the  only  man  that  could  do 
it  in  that  critical  time  of  the  approaching  judgment  of  the  holy 
city.  As  long  as  there  was  any  hope  of  a conversion  of  the 
Jews  as  a nation,  he  prayed  for  it  and  made  the  transition  as 
easy  as  possible.  When  that  hope  vanished  his  mission  was 
fulfilled. 

According  to  Josephus  he  was,  at  the  instigation  of  the  younger 
Ananus,  the  high  priest,  of  the  sect  of  the  Sadducees,  whom  he 
calls  “ the  most  unmerciful  of  all  the  Jews  in  the  execution  of 
judgment,”  stoned  to  death  with  some  others,  as  “ breakers  of 
the  law,”  i.  e.  Christians,  in  the  interval  between  the  procura- 
torship  of  Festus  and  that  of  Albinus,  that  is,  in  the  year  63. 

1 “ Greeting,”  xa^P€t*'?  Acts  15  : 23,  and  James  1 : 1,  instead  of  the  specific 
Christian  x^Pts  *cd  *lpJ)vy. 

8 1 Cor.  9:5. 


268 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


The  Jewish  historian  adds  that  this  act  of  injustice  created 
great  indignation  among  those  most  devoted  to  the  law  (the 
Pharisees),  and  that  they  induced  Albinus  and  King  Agrippa 
to  depose  Ananus  (a  son  of  the  Annas  mentioned  in  Luke  3:2; 
John  18:13).  He  thus  furnishes  an  impartial  testimony  to  the 
high  standing  of  James  even  among  the  Jews.1 

Hegesippus,  a Jewish  Christian  historian  about  a.d.  170,  puts 
the  martyrdom  a few  years  later,  shortly  before  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  (69). 3 He  relates  that  James  was  first  thrown 
down  from  the  pinnacle  of  the  temple  by  the  Jews  and  then 
stoned  to  death.  His  last  prayer  was  an  echo  of  that  of  his 
brother  and  Lord  on  the  cross : “ God,  Father,  forgive  them  ; for 
they  know  not  what  they  do.” 

The  dramatic  account  of  James  by  Hegesippus  8 is  an  over- 
drawn picture  from  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  colored 
by  Judaizing  traits  which  may  have  been  derived  from  the 
“Ascents  of  James”  and  other  apocryphal  sources.  He  turns 
James  into  a Jewish  priest  and  Kazarite  saint  (comp,  his  advice 
to  Paul,  Acts  21 : 23,  21),  who  drank  no  wine,  ate  no  flesh,  never 
shaved,  nor  took  a bath,  and  wore  only  linen.  But  the  biblical 
James  is  Pharisaic  and  legalistic  rather  than  Essenic  and  ascetic. 
In  the  pseudo-Clementine  writings,  he  is  raised  even  above 
Peter  as  the  head  of  the  holy  church  of  the  Hebrews,  as  “ the 
lord  and  bishop  of  bishops,”  as  “ the  prince  of  priests.”  Accord- 
ing to  tradition,  mentioned  by  Epiphanius.  James,  like  St.  John 
at  Ephesus,  wore  the  high-priestly  petalon,  or  golden  plate  on 
the  forehead,  with  the  inscription : “ Holiness  to  the  Lord  ” 
(Ex.  28  : 36).  And  in  the  Liturgy  of  St.  James , the  brother  of 
Jesus  is  raised  to  the  dignity  of  “ the  brother  of  the  very  God” 
(aSe\</>c$eo?).  Legends  gather  around  the  memory  of  great 

Josephus  calls  James  “the  brother  of  Jesus  the  so-called  Christ ” (rbv 
hbe\(pbv  'Itjcov  t ov  \eyo/j.cvov  Xpiarov,  ’lanco/Hos  ovofia  airrcT),  but  these  words 
are  regarded  by  some  critics  (Lardner,  Credner,  and  others)  as  a Christian  in- 
terpolation. 

2 Neander,  Ewald,  and  Renan  give  the  preference  to  the  date  of  Josephus. 
But  according  to  the  pseudo-Clementine  literature  James  survived  Peter. 

3 See  below,  Note  II. 


§ 27.  JAMES,  TIIE  BROTHER  OF  THE  LORD.  269 


men,  and  reveal  the  deep  impression  they  made  upon  their 
friends  and  followers.  The  character  which  shines  through 
these  James-legends  is  that  of  a loyal,  zealous,  devout,  consist- 
ent Hebrew  Christian,  who  by  his  personal  purity  and  holiness 
secured  the  reverence  and  affection  of  all  around  him. 

But  we  must  carefully  distinguish  between  the  Jewish-Chris- 
tian,  yet  orthodox,  overestimate  of  James  in  the  Eastern  church, 
as  we  find  it  in  the  fragments  of  Ilegesippus  and  in  the  Liturgy  of 
St.  James,  and  the  heretical  perversion  of  James  into  an  enemy 
of  Paul  and  the  gospel  of  freedom,  as  he  appears  in  apocryphal 
fictions.  We  have  here  the  same  phenomenon  as  in  the  case  of 
Peter  and  Paul.  Every  leading  apostle  has  his  apocryphal 
shadow  and  caricature  both  in  the  primitive  church  and  in  the 
modern  critical  reconstruction  of  its  history.  The  name  and 
authority  of  James  was  abused  by  the  Judaizing  party  in  under- 
mining the  work  of  Paul,  notwithstanding  the  fraternal  agree- 
ment of  the  two  at  Jerusalem.1  The  Ebionites  in  the  second 
century  continued  this  malignant  assault  upon  the  memory  of 
Paul  under  cover  of  the  honored  names  of  James  and  Peter ; 
while  a certain  class  of  modern  critics  (though  usually  from  the 
opposite  ultra-  or  pseudo-Pauline  point  of  view)  endeavor  to 
prove  the  same  antagonism  from  the  Epistle  of  James  (as  far  as 
they  admit  it  to  be  genuine  at  all).2 

The  Epistle  in  our  canon,  which  purports  to  be  written  by 
“ James,  a bond-servant  of  God  and  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  the  twelve 
tribes  of  the  dispersion,”  though  not  generally  acknowledged  at 
the  time  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  has  strong  internal  evidence 
of  genuineness.  It  precisely  suits  the  character  and  position  of 
the  historical  James  as  we  know  him  from  Paul  and  the  Acts, 

1 Gal.  2 : 12.  How  far  the  unnamed  messengers  of  James  from  Jerusalem, 
who  intimidated  Peter  and  Barnabas  at  Antioch,  acted  under  authority  from 
James,  does  not  appear;  but  it  is  certain  from  ver.  9,  as  well  as  from  the 
Acts,  that  James  recognized  the  peculiar  divine  grace  and  success  of  Paul  and 
Barnabas  in  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles ; he  could  therefore  not  without 
gross  inconsistency  make  common  cause  with  his  adversaries. 

2 Even  Luther,  in  an  unguarded  moment  (1524),  called  the  epistle  of  James 
an  “ epistle  of  straw,  ” because  he  could  not  harmonize  it  with  Paul’s  doctrine 
of  justification  by  faith. 


270 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


and  differs  widely  from  the  apocryphal  James  of  the  Ebionite 
fictions.1  It  hails  undoubtedly  from  Jerusalem,  the  theocratic 
metropolis,  amid  the  scenery  of  Palestine.  The  Christian  com- 
munities appear  not  as  churches,  but  as  synagogues,  consisting 
mostly  of  poor  people,  oppressed  and  persecuted  by  the  rich  and 
powerful  Jews.  There  is  no  trace  of  Gentile  Christians  or  of 
any  controversy  between  them  and  the  Jewish  Christians.  The 
Epistle  was  perhaps  a companion  to  the  original  Gospel  of  Mat- 
thew for  the  Hebrews,  as  the  first  Epistle  of  John  was  such  a 
companion  to  his  Gospel.  It  is  probably  the  oldest  of  the  epis- 
tles of  the  Hew  Testament.2  It  represents,  at  all  events,  the 
earliest  and  meagerest,  yet  an  eminently  practical  and  necessary 
type  of  Christianity,  with  prophetic  earnestness,  proverbial  sen- 
tentiousness, great  freshness,  and  in  fine  Greek.  It  is  not  dog- 
matic but  ethical.  It  has  a strong  resemblance  to  the  addresses 
of  John  the  Baptist  and  the  Lord’s  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and 
also  to  the  book  of  Ecclesiasticus  and  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon.3 
It  never  attacks  the  Jews  directly,  but  still  less  St.  Paul,  at 
least  not  his  genuine  doctrine.  It  characteristically  calls  the 
gospel  the  “ perfect  law  of  liberty,” 4 thus  connecting  it  very 
closely  with  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  yet  raising  it  by  implica- 


1 Ewald  (vi.  608)  remarks  that  it  is  just  such  a letter  as  we  may  expect 
from  the  centre  of  Christianity  in  that  period,  when  most  Christians  were 
poor  and  oppressed  by  rich  Jews. 

2 The  date  of  composition  is  as  yet  an  unsolved  problem,  and  critics  vary 
between  a.d.  45  and  62.  Schneckenburger,  Neander,  Thiersch,  Huther, 
Hofmann,  Weiss,  and  Beyschlag,  and  among  English  divines,  Alford,  Bassett 
(who,  however,  wrongly  vindicates  the  Epistle  to  James  the  son  of  Zebedee), 
and  Plumptre  assign  it  a very  early  date  before  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  (50) 
and  the  circumcision  controversy,  to  which  there  is  no  allusion.  On  the 
other  hand  Lardner,  De  Wette,  Wiesinger,  Lange,  Ewald,  and  also  those  com- 
mentators who  see  in  the  Epistle  a polemical  reference  to  Paul  and  his  teach- 
ing, bring  it  down  to  62.  At  all  events,  it  was  written  before  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  which  would  have  been  noticed  by  a later  writer.  The  Tubin- 
gen school  (Baur,  Schwegler,  Hilgenfeld)  deny  its  genuineness  and  assign  it 
to  a.d.  80  or  90.  Renan  admits  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistles  of  James  and 
Jude,  as  counter-manifestoes  of  Jewish  Christianity  against  Paulinism,  and 
accounts  for  the  good  Greek  style  by  the  aid  of  a Greek  secretary. 

3 See  the  lists  of  parallel  passages  in  Plumptre,  pp.  7-9  and  33. 

4 James  1 :25.  6 irapaKvif/as  e is  v6p.ov  tcA ciov  rbv  rrjs  i\ fv&cpias. 


§ 27.  JAMES,  THE  BROTHER  OF  THE  LORD.  271 


tion  far  above  the  imperfect  law  of  bondage.  The  author  has 
very  little  to  say  about  Christ  and  the  deeper  mysteries  of  re- 
demption, but  evidently  presupposes  a knowledge  of  the  gospel 
history,  and  reverently  calls  Christ  “ the  Lord  of  glory,”  and 
himself  humbly  his  “bond-servant.”1  lie  represents  religion 
throughout  in  its  practical  aspect  as  an  exhibition  of  faith  by 
good  works.  lie  undoubtedly  differs  widely  from  Paul,  yet  does 
not  contradict,  but  supplements  him,  and  fills  an  important  place 
in  the  Christian  system  of  truth  which  comprehends  all  types  of 
genuine  piety.  There  are  multitudes  of  sincere,  earnest,  and 
faithful  Christian  workers  who  never  rise  above  the  level  of 
James  to  the  sublime  heights  of  Paul  or  John.  The  Christian 
church  would  never  have  given  to  the  Epistle  of  James  a place 
in  the  canon  if  she  had  felt  that  it  was  irreconcilable  with  the 
doctrine  of  Paul.  Even  the  Lutheran  church  did  not  follow  her 
great  leader  in  his  unfavorable  judgment,  but  still  retains  James 
among  the  canonical  books. 

After  the  martyrdom  of  James  he  was  succeeded  by  Symeon, 
a son  of  Clopas  and  a cousin  of  Jesus  (and  of  James).  lie  con- 
tinued to  guide  the  church  at  Jerusalem  till  the  reign  of  Trajan, 
when  he  died  a martyr  at  the  great  age  of  a hundred  and  twenty 
years.2  The  next  thirteen  bishops  of  Jerusalem,  who  came, 
however,  in  rapid  succession,  were  likewise  of  Jewish  descent. 

Throughout  this  period  the  church  of  Jerusalem  preserved  its 
strongly  Israelitish  type,  but  joined  with  it  “ the  genuine  knowl- 
edge of  Christ,”  and  stood  in  communion  with  the  Catholic 
church,  from  which  the  Ebionites,  as  heretical  Jewish  Chris- 
tians, were  excluded.  Aiter  the  line  of  the  fifteen  circumcised 
bishops  had  run  out,  and  Jerusalem  was  a second  time  laid 
waste  under  Hadrian,  the  mass  of  the  Jewish  Christians  gradu- 
ally merged  in  the  orthodox  Greek  Church. 

*2:1  6xere  tV  trlanv  rod  Kvpiov  t)uojv  'It)(tov  Xpicrrov  rrjs  Mfys.  In  the 
inscription,  1 : 1,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  associated  with  God. 

2 Hegesippus  apud  Euseb.  II.  E.  III.,  11,  22,  32 ; IV.,  5,  22.  Const.  Apost. 
VII.  46.  Hegesippus  assumes  that  Clopas,  the  father  of  Symeon,  was  a 
brother  of  Joseph  and  an  uncle  of  Jesus.  He  never  calls  Symeon  “ brother 
of  the  Lord,”  but  only  James  and  Jude  (II.  23  ; III.  20). 


272 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Notes. 

I.  James  and  the  Brothers  of  the  Lord. — There  are  three,  perhaps 
four,  eminent  persons  in  the  New  Testament  bearing  the  name  of  James 
(abridged  from  Jacob,  which  from  patriarchal  memories  was  a more  com- 
mon name  among  the  Jews  than  any  other  except  Symeon  or  Simon,  and 
Joseph  or  Joses)  : 

1.  James  (the  son)  of  Zebedee,  the  brother  of  John  and  one  of  the  three 
favorite  apostles,  the  proto-martyr  among  the  Twelve  (beheaded  a.d.  44, 
see  Acts  12  : 2),  as  his  brother  John  was  the  survivor  of  all  the  apostles. 
They  were  called  the  “ sons  of  thunder.” 

2.  James  (the  son)  of  Alpheus,  who  was  likewise  one  of  the  Twelve, 
and  is  mentioned  in  the  four  apostle-catalogues,  Matt.  10:3;  Mark 
3:10;  Luke  6 : 15 ; Acts  1 : 13. 

3.  James  the  Little,  Mark  15  : 40  (6  pucpos , not  “the  Less,”  as  in  the 
E.  V.),  probably  so  called  from  his  small  stature  (as  Zacchseus,  Luke  19  : 
3),  the  son  of  a certain  Mary  and  brother  of  Joseph,  Matt.  27  : 56  (M apia 
rj  tov  'laKctfiov  kcu  ’I (txrrjcf)  p-tjTrjp) ; Mark  15  : 40,  47 ; 16  : 1 ; Luke  24  : 10. 
He  is  usually  identified  with  James  the  son  of  Alphaeus,  on  the  assump- 
tion that  his  mother  Mary  was  the  wife  of  Clopas,  mentioned  John  19  : 
25,  and  that  Clopas  was  the  same  person  as  Alphaeus.  But  this  identifi- 
cation is  at  least  very  problematical. 

4.  James,  simply  so  called,  as  the  most  distinguished  after  the  early 
death  of  James  the  Elder,  or  with  the  honorable  epithet  Brother  of  the 
Lord  (6  d8e\(f)bs  tov  K vpiov),  and  among  post-apostolic  writers,  the  Just, 
also  Bishop  of  Jerusalem.  The  title  connects  him  at  once  with  the  four 
brothers  and  the  unnamed  sisters  of  our  Lord,  who  are  repeatedly  men- 
tioned in  the  Gospels,  and  he  as  the  first  among  them.  Hence  the  com- 
plicated question  of  the  nature  of  this  relationship.  Although  I have 
fully  discussed  this  intricate  subject  nearly  forty  years  ago  (1842)  in 
the  German  essay  above  mentioned,  and  then  again  in  my  annotations  to 
Lange  on  Matthew  (Am.  ed.  1864,  pp.  256-260),  I will  briefly  sum  up 
once  more  the  chief  points  with  reference  to  the  most  recent  discussions 
(of  Lightfoot  and  Renan). 

There  are  three  theories  on  James  and  the  brothers  of  Jesus.  I would 
call  them  the  brother- theory,  the  half -brother -theory,  and  the  cousin- 
theory.  Bishop  Lightfoot  (and  Canon  Farrar)  calls  them  after  their 
chief  advocates,  the  Helvidian  (an  invidious  designation),  the  Epiphanian , 
and  the  Hiei'cmymian  theories.  The  first  is  now  confined  to  Protestants, 
the  second  is  the  Greek,  the  third  the  Roman  view. 

(1)  The  BROTHER-theory  takes  the  term  «8(X0oi  in  the  usual  sense,  and 
regards  the  brothers  as  younger  children  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  conse- 
quently as  full  brothers  of  Jesus  in  the  eyes  of  the  law  and  the  opinion 
of  the  people,  though  really  only  half-brothers,  in  view  of  his  superna- 
tural conception.  This  is  exegetically  the  most  natural  view  and  favored 


§ 27.  JAMES,  TIIE  BROTHER  OF  THE  LORD.  273 


by  tlie  meaning  of  d8c\(f)6s  (especially  when  used  as  a standing  designa- 
tion), the  constant  companionship  of  these  brethren  with  Mary  (John 
2 : 12  ; Matt.  12  : 46  ; 13  : 55),  and  by  the  obvious  meaning  of  Matt.  1 : 25 
( ovk  (yluoxTKfv  avrrjv  € u)  s o v,  COmp.  1 18  npiv  rj  avveXSeiv  avrovs),  and  Luke 
2 : 7 (n  p a > r o tokos),  as  explained  from  the  standpoint  of  the  evangelists,  who 
used  these  terms  in  full  view  of  the  subsequent  history  of  Mary  and  Jesus. 
The  only  serious  objection  to  it  is  of  a doctrinal  and  ethical  nature,  viz., 
the  assumed  perpetual  virginity  of  the  mother  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour, 
and  the  committal  of  her  at  the  cross  to  John  rather  than  her  own  sons 
and  daughters  (John  19  : 25).  If  it  were  not  for  these  two  obstacles  the 
brother-theory  would  probably  be  adopted  by  every  fair  and  honest 
exegete.  The  first  of  these  objections  dates  from  the  post-apostolic 
ascetic  overestimate  of  virginity,  and  cannot  have  been  felt  by  Matthew 
and  Luke,  else  they  would  have  avoided  those  ambiguous  terms  just 
noticed.  The  second  difficulty  presses  also  on  the  other  two  theories,  only 
in  a less  degree.  It  must  therefore  be  solved  on  other  grounds,  namely, 
the  profound  spiritual  sympathy  and  congeniality  of  John  with  Jesus  and 
Mary,  which  rose  above  carnal  relationships,  the  probable  cousinship  of 
John  (based  upon  the  proper  interpretation  of  the  same  passage,  John 
19  : 25),  and  the  unbelief  of  the  real  brethren  at  the  time  of  the  committal. 

This  theory  was  held  by  Tertullian  (whom  Jerome  summarily  dis- 
poses of  as  not  being  a “homo  ecclesiae,”  i.  e.  a schismatic),  defended 
by  Helvidius  at  Rome  about  380  (violently  attacked  as  a heretic  by 
Jerome),  and  by  several  individuals  and  sects  opposed  to  the  incipient 
worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary ; and  recently  by  the  majority  of  German 
Protestant  exegetes  since  Herder,  such  as  Stier,  De  Wette,  Meyer, 
Weiss,  Ewald,  Wieseler,  Keim,  also  by  Dean  Alford,  and  Canon  Farrar 
(Life  of  Christ , I.  97  sq.).  I advocated  the  same  theory  in  my  German 
tract,  but  admitted  afterwards  in  my  Hist,  of  Ap.  Cli.,  p.  378,  that  I did 
not  give  sufficient  weight  to  the  second  theory. 

(2)  The  half-brother- theory  regards  the  brethren  and  sisters  of 
Jesus  as  children  of  Joseph  by  a former  wife,  consequently  as  no  blood- 
relations  at  all,  but  so  designated  simply  as  Joseph  was  called  the  father 
of  Jesus,  by  an  exceptional  use  of  the  term  adapted  to  the  exceptional 
fact  of  the  miraculous  incarnation.  This  has  the  dogmatic  advantage  of 
saving  the  perpetual  virginity  of  the  mother  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour ; 
it  lessens  the  moral  difficulty  implied  in  John  19  : 25 ; and  it  has  a strong 
traditional  support  in  the  apocryphal  Gospels  and  in  the  Eastern  church. 
It  also  would  seem  to  explain  more  easily  the  patronizing  tone  in  which 
the  brethren  speak  to  our  Lord  in  John  7 : 3,  4.  But  it  does  not  so 
naturally  account  for  the  constant  companionship  of  these  brethren  with 
Mary ; it  assumes  a former  marriage  of  Joseph  nowhere  alluded  to  in 
the  Gospels,  and  makes  Joseph  an  old  man  and  protector  rather  than 
husband  of  Mary ; and  finally  it  is  not  free  from  suspicion  of  an  ascetic 
bias,  as  being  the  first  step  towards  the  dogma  of  the  perpetual  virginity. 


274 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


To  these  objections  may  be  added,  with  Farrar,  that  if  the  brethren 
had  been  elder  sons  of  Joseph,  Jesus  would  not  have  been  regarded  as 
legal  heir  of  the  throne  of  David  (Matt.  1:16;  Luke  1:27;  Rom.  1:3; 
2 Tim.  2:8;  Rev.  22  : 16). 

This  theory  is  found  first  in  the  apocryphal  writings  of  James  (the 
Protevangelium  Jacobi,  the  Ascents  of  James,  etc.),  and  then  among  the 
leading  Greek  fathers  (Clement  of  Alexandria,  Origen,  Eusebius,  Gregory 
of  Nyssa,  Epiphanius,  Cyril  of  Alexandria) ; it  is  embodied  in  the  Greek, 
Syrian,  and  Coptic  services,  which  assign  different  dates  to  the  com- 
memoration of  James  the  son  of  Alphaeus  (Oct.  9),  and  of  James  the 
Lord’s  brother  (Oct.  23).  It  may  therefore  be  called  the  theory  of  the 
Eastern  church.  It  was  also  held  by  some  Latin  fathers  before  Jerome 
(Hilary  of  Poitiers  and  Ambrose),  and  has  recently  been  ably  advocated 
by  Bishop  Liglitfoot  (/.  c.),  followed  by  Dr.  Plumptre  (in  the  introduc- 
tion to  his  Com.  on  the  Ep.  of  James). 

(3)  The  cousm-theory  regards  the  brethren  as  more  distant  relatives, 
namely,  as  children  of  Mary,  the  wife  of  Alphaeus  and  sister  of  the  Vir- 
gin Mary,  and  identifies  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  with  James  the 
son  of  Alphaeus  and  James  the  Little,  thus  making  him  (as  well  as  also 
Simon  and  Jude)  an  apostle.  The  exceptive  cl  /zj),  Gal.  1 : 19  (but  I 
saw  only  James),  does  not  prove  this,  but  rather  excludes  James  from 
the  apostles  proper  (comp,  cl  n rj  in  Gal.  2 : 16 ; Luke  4 : 26,  27). 

This  theory  was  first  advanced  by  Jerome  in  383,  in  a youthful  polemic 
tract  against  Helvidius,  without  any  traditional  support,1  but  with  the 
professed  dogmatic  and  ascetic  aim  to  save  the  virginity  of  both  Mary  and 
Joseph,  and  to  reduce  their  marriage  relation  to  a merely  nominal  and 
barren  connection.  In  his  later  writings,  however,  after  his  residence  in 
Palestine,  he  treats  the  question  with  less  confidence  (see  Lightfoot,  p. 
253).  By  his  authority  and  the  still  greater  weight  of  St.  Augustin,  who 
at  first  (394)  wavered  between  the  second  and  third  theories,  but  afterwards 
adopted  that  of  Jerome,  it  became  the  established  theory  of  the  Latin 
church  and  was  embodied  in  the  Western  services,  which  acknowledge 
only  two  saints  by  the  name  of  James.  But  it  is  the  least  tenable  of  all 
and  must  be  abandoned,  chiefly  for  the  following  reasons  : 

(a)  It  contradicts  the  natural  meaning  of  the  word  “ brother,”  when 
the  New  Testament  has  the  proper  term  for  cousin  (avcyfriof,  Col.  4 : 10, 
comp,  also  avyyfvrjs,  Luke  2 : 44 ; 21:16;  Mark  6 : 4,  etc.),  and  the 
obvious  sense  of  the  passages  where  the  brothers  and  sisters  of  Jesus 
appear  as  members  of  the  holy  family. 

(b)  It  assumes  that  two  sisters  had  the  same  name,  Mary,  which  is 
extremely  improbable. 

1 The  passage  quoted  from  Papias  • “ Maria  Cleophce  sire  Alphcei  uxo?\  qua 
fuit  mater  Jacobi  episcopi  et  apostoli is  taken  from  Jerome  and  belongs  not  to 
the  sub-apostolic  Papias  of  Hierapolis  (as  has  been  supposed  even  by  Mill  and 
Wordsworth),  but  to  a mediaeval  Papias,  the  writer  of  an  Elementarium  or 
Dictionary  in  the  11th  century.  See  Lightfoot,  p.  265  sq. 


§ 27.  JAMES,  TIIE  BROTHER  OF  THE  LORD.  275 


(c)  It  assumes  the  identity  of  Clopas  and  Alplimus,  which  is  equally 
doubtful;  for  'A\(f>uios  is  a Hebrew  name  (iDin)*  while  KA&mds,  like 
KAcu7rm,  Luke  24 : 18,  is  an  abbreviation  of  the  Greek  KAfonurpos,  as 
Antipas  is  contracted  from  Antipatros. 

(d)  It  is  absolutely  irreconcilable  with  the  fact  that  the  brethren  of 
Jesus,  James  among  them,  were  before  the  resurrection  unbelievers, 
John  7 : 5,  and  consequently  none  of  them  could  have  been  an  apostle, 
as  this  theory  assumes  of  two  or  three. 

Renan’s  theory. — I notice,  in  conclusion,  an  original  combination  ol 
the  second  and  third  theories  by  Renan,  who  discusses  the  question  of 
the  brothers  and  cousins  of  Jesus  in  an  appendix  to  his  Les  evangiles, 
537-540.  He  assumes  four  Jameses,  and  distinguishes  the  son  of  Alphse- 
us  from  the  son  of  Clopas.  He  holds  that  Joseph  was  twice  married,  and 
that  Jesus  had  several  older  brothers  and  cousins  as  follows  : 

1.  Children  of  Joseph  from  the  first  marriage,  and  older  brothers  of 

Jesus : 

a.  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  or  Just,  or  Obliam.  This 

is  the  one  mentioned  Matt.  13 : 55 ; Mark  6:3;  Gal.  1 : 
19;  2:9,  12;  1 Cor.  15  : 7;  Acts  12  : 17,  etc. ; James  1:1; 
Jude  1 : 1,  and  in  Josephus  and  Hegesippus. 

b.  Jude,  mentioned  Matt.  13 : 55 ; Mark  6:3;  Jude  1:1; 

Hegesippus  in  Eusebius’  Hist.  Eccl.  III.  19,  20, 32.  From 
him  were  descended  those  two  grandsons,  bishops  of  dif- 
ferent churches,  who  were  presented  to  the  emperor 
Domitian  as  descendants  of  David  and  relations  of  Jesus. 
Hegesippus  in  Euseb.  III.  19,  20,  32. 

c.  Other  sons  and  daughters  unknown.  Matt.  13  : 56 ; Mark 

6:3;  1 Cor.  9:5. 

2.  Children  of  Joseph  (?)  from  the  marriage  with  Mary  : 

Jesus. 

3.  Children  of  Clopas , and  cousins  of  Jesus,  probably  from  the  father’s 

side,  since  Clopas,  according  to  Hegesippus,  wras  a brother  of 

Joseph,  and  may  have  married  also  a woman  by  the  name  of 

Mary  (John  19  : 25). 

a.  James  the  eittle  (6  pucpos),  so  called  to  distinguish  him 

from  his  older  cousin  of  that  name.  Mentioned  Matt. 
27  : 56 ; Mark  15  : 40 ; 16  : 1 ; Luke  24  : 10  ; otherwise 
unknown. 

b.  Joses,  Matt.  27  : 56 ; Mark  15  : 40,  47,  but  erroneously  ( ? ) 

numbered  among  the  brothers  of  Jesus  : Matt.  13  : 55  ; 
Mark  6:3;  otherwise  unknown. 

c.  Symeon,  the  second  bishop  of  Jerusalem  (Hegesippus  in 

Eus.  HI.  11,  22,  32  ; IV.  5,  22),  also  erroneously  (?)  put 
among  the  brothers  of  Jesus  by  Matt.  13  : 55  ; Mark  6 : 3. 

d.  Perhaps  other  sons  and  daughters  unknown. 


276 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


II.  Tlie  description  of  James  by  Hbgesitpus  (from  Eusebius,  77.  E. 
II.  23).  “ Hegesippus  also,  who  flourished  nearest  the  days  of  the  apos- 

tles, gives  (in  the  fifth  book  of  his  Memorials)  this  most  accurate  account 
of  him  : 

“ ‘Now  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  who  (as  there  are  many  of 
this  name)  was  surnamed  the  Just  by  all  (o  d8eX<f)6s  rov  Kvplov  ’Id Kco/Soy,  o 
dvopao-Se'is  vno  tuivtwv  dtKaios),  from  the  Lord’s  time  even  to  our  own, 
received  the  government  of  the  church  with  (or  from)  the  apostles  [perd, 
in  conjunction  with,  or  according  to  another  reading,  napa  ru> v dnoaruXop, 
which  would  more  clearly  distinguish  him  from  the  apostles].  This 
man  [olros,  not  this  apostle]  was  consecrated  from  his  mothers  womb. 
He  drank  neither  wine  nor  strong  drink,  and  abstained  from  animal 
food.  No  razor  came  upon  his  head,  he  never  anointed  himself  with 
oil,  and  never  used  a bath  [probably  the  luxury  of  the  Roman  bath, 
with  its  sudatorium,  frigidarium,  etc.,  but  not  excluding  the  usual  ablu- 
tions practised  by  all  devout  Jews].  He  alone  was  allowed  to  enter  the 
sanctuary  [not  the  holy  of  holies,  but  the  court  of  priests].  He  wore 
no  woolen,  but  linen  garments  only.  He  was  in  the  habit  of  entering 
the  temple  alone,  and  was  often  found  upon  his  bended  knees,  and  inter- 
ceding for  the  forgiveness  of  the  people  ; so  that  his  knees  became  as 
hard  as  a camel’s,  on  account  of  his  constant  supplication  and  kneeling 
before  God.  And  indeed,  on  account  of  his  exceeding  great  piety,  he 
was  called  the  Just  [Zaddik]  and  Oblias  [diKaios  ku\  ufiXlas,  probably  a 
corruption  of  the  Hebrew  Ophel  am,  Tower  of  the  People],  which  signifies 
justice  and  the  bulwark  of  the  people  (t re/noy>)  rov  Xaov ) ; as  the  prophets 
declare  concerning  him.  Some  of  the  seven  sects  of  the  people,  men- 
tioned by  me  above  in  my  Memoirs , used  to  ask  him  what  was  the  door, 
[probably  the  estimate  or  doctrine]  of  Jesus?  and  he  answered  that  he 
was  the  Saviour.  And  of  these  some  believed  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ. 
But  the  aforesaid  sects  did  not  believe  either  a resurrection,  or  that  he 
was  coming  to  give  to  every  one  according  to  his  works ; as  many,  how- 
ever, as  did  believe,  did  so  on  account  of  James.  And  when  many  of 
the  rulers  also  believed,  there  arose  a tumult  among  the  Jews,  Scribes, 
and  Pharisees,  saying  that  the  whole  people  were  in  danger  of  looking 
for  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  They  came  therefore  together,  and  said  to 
James : We  entreat  thee,  restrain  the  people,  who  are  led  astray  after 
Jesus,  as  though  he  were  the  Christ.  We  entreat  thee  to  persuade  all 
that  are  coming  to  the  feast  of  the  Passover  rightly  concerning  Jesus ; 
for  we  all  have  confidence  in  thee.  For  we  and  all  the  people  bear  thee 
testimony  that  thou  art  just,  and  art  no  respecter  of  persons.  Persuade 
therefore  the  people  not  to  be  led  astray  by  Jesus,  for  we  and  all  the 
people  have  great  confidence  in  thee.  Stand  therefore  upon  the  pinnacle 
of  the  temple,  that  thou  mayest  be  conspicuous  on  high,  and  thy  words 
may  be  easily  heard  by  all  the  people ; for  all  the  tribes  have  come  to- 
gether on  account  of  the  Passover,  with  some  of  the  Gentiles  also. 


§ 27.  JAMES,  TIIE  BROTHER  OF  THE  LORD.  277 


The  aforesaid  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  therefore,  placed  James  upon  the 
pinnacle  of  the  temple,  and  cried  out  to  him  : “ O thou  just  man,  whom 
we  ought  all  to  believe,  since  the  people  are  led  astray  after  Jesus  that 
was  crucified,  declare  to  us  what  is  the  door  of  Jesus  that  was  crucified.” 
And  he  answered  with  a loud  voice : “ Why  do  ye  ask  me  respecting 
Jesus  the  Son  of  Man  ? He  is  now  sitting  in  the  heavens,  on  the  right 
hand  of  the  great  Power,  and  is  about  to  come  on  the  clouds  of  heaven.” 
And  as  many  were  confirmed,  and  gloried  in  this  testimony  of  James,  and 
said : “ Hosanna  to  the  Son  of  David,”  these  same  priests  and  Pharisees 
said  to  one  another : “ We  have  done  badly  in  affording  such  testimony 
to  Jesus,  but  let  us  go  up  and  cast  him  down,  that  they  may  dread  to 
believe  in  him.”  And  they  cried  out : “ Ho,  ho,  the  Just  himself  is  de- 
ceived.” And  they  fulfilled  that  which  is  written  in  Isaiah,  “Let  us 
take  away  the  Just,  because  he  is  offensive  to  us ; wherefore  they  shall 
eat  the  fruit  of  their  doings.”  [Comp.  Is.  3 : 10.] 

And  going  up,  they  cast  down  the  just  man,  saying  to  one  another : 
“ Let  us  stone  James  the  Just.”  And  they  began  to  stone  him,  as  he 
did  not  die  immediately  when  cast  down ; but  turning  round,  he  knelt 
down,  saying : “I  entreat  thee,  O Lord  God  and  Father,  forgive  them, 
for  they  know  not  what  they  do.”  Thus  they  were  stoning  him,  when 
one  of  the  priests  of  the  sons  of  Rechab,  a son  of  the  Recliabites,  spoken 
of  by  Jeremiah  the  prophet  (35  : 2),  cried  out,  saying : “ Cease,  what  are 
you  doing?  The  Just  is  praying  for  you.”  And  one  of  them,  a fuller, 
beat  out  the  brains  of  the  Just  with  the  club  that  he  used  to  beat  out 
clothes.  Thus  he  suffered  martyrdom,  and  they  buried  him  on  the  spot 
where  his  tombstone  is  still  remaining,  by  the  temple.  He  became  a 
faithful  witness,  both  to  the  Jews  and  Greeks,  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ. 
Immediately  after  this,  Vespasian  invaded  and  took  Judaea.’  ” 

“ Such,”  adds  Eusebius,  “ is  the  more  ample  testimony  of  Hegesippus, 
in  which  he  fully  coincides  with  Clement.  So  admirable  a man  indeed 
was  James,  and  so  celebrated  among  all  for  his  justice,  that  even  the 
wiser  part  of  the  Jews  were  of  opinion  that  this  was  the  cause  of  the  im 
mediate  siege  of  Jerusalem,  which  happened  to  them  for  no  other  reason 
than  the  crime  against  him.  Josephus  also  has  not  hesitated  to  super- 
add this  testimony  in  his  works  : ‘ These  things,’  says  he,  ‘ happened  to 
the  Jews  to  avenge  James  the  Just,  who  was  the  brother  of  him  that  is 
called  Christ  and  whom  the  Jews  had  slain,  notwithstanding  his  pre- 
eminent justice.’  The  same  writer  also  relates  his  death,  in  the  twen- 
tieth book  of  his  Antiquities , in  the  following  words,’  ” etc. 

Then  Eusebius  gives  the  account  of  Josephus. 


278 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


§ 28.  Preparation  for  the  Mission  to  the  Gentiles. 

The  planting  of  the  church  among  the  Gentiles  is  mainly  the 
work  of  Paul ; but  Providence  prepared  the  way  for  it  by  several 
steps,  before  this  apostle  entered  upon  his  sublime  mission. 

1.  By  the  conversion  of  those  half -Gentiles  and  bitter  enemies 
of  the  Jews,  the  Samaritans,  under  the  preaching  and  baptism 
of  Philip  the  evangelist,  one  of  the  seven  deacons  of  Jerusalem, 
and  under  the  confirming  instruction  of  the  apostles  Peter  and 
and  John.  The  gospel  found  ready  entrance  into  Samaria,  as 
had  been  prophetically  hinted  by  the  Lord  in  the  conversation  at 
Jacob’s  well.1  But  there  we  meet  also  the  first  heretical  perver- 
sion of  Christianity  by  Simon  Magus,  whose  hypocrisy  and  at- 
tempt to  degrade  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  received  from  Peter 
a terrible  rebuke.  (Hence  the  term  simony , for  sordid  traffic 
in  church  offices  and  dignities.)  This  encounter  of  the  prince 
of  the  apostles  with  the  arch-heretic  was  regarded  in  the  ancient 
church,  and  fancifully  represented,  as  typifying  the  relation  of 
ecclesiastical  orthodoxy  to  deceptive  heresy. 

2.  Somewhat  later  (between  37  and  40)  occurred  the  conver- 
sion of  the  noble  centurion,  Cornelius  of  Caesarea,  a pious  pro- 
selyte of  the  gate,  whom  Peter,  in  consequence  of  a special 
revelation,  received  into  the  communion  of  the  Christian  church 
directly  by  baptism,  without  circumcision.  This  bold  step  the 
apostle  had  to  vindicate  to  the  strict  Jewish  Christians  in  Jeru- 
salem, who  thought  circumcision  a condition  of  salvation,  and 
Judaism  the  only  way  to  Christianity.  Thus  Peter  laid  the 
foundation  also  of  the  Gentile-Christian  church.  The  event 
marked  a revolution  in  Peter’s  mind,  and  his  emancipation  from 
the  narrow  prejudices  of  Judaism.2 


1 Acts,  ch.  8 ; comp.  John,  ch.  4. 

5 Acts,  chs.  10  and  11.  The  account  which  Peter  gave  to  the  brethren  at 
Jerusalem  was  not  a mere  repetition  of  the  facts  related  in  ch.  10,  but  an  apolo- 
getic adaptation  to  the  peculiar  wants  of  the  audience.  This  has  been  well 
shown  by  Dean  Howson  in  his  Commentary  on  those  two  chapters  (in  Schaff’s 
Intemat.  Com.  vol.  II.).  Comp,  my  Hist,  of  Ap.  Ch.  217  sqq. 


§ 28.  PREPARATION  FOR  MISSION  TO  THE  GENTILES.  279 

3.  Still  more  important  was  the  rise,  at  about  the  same  time,  of 
the  church  at  Antiocit,  the  capital  of  Syria.  This  congregation, 
formed  under  the  influence  of  the  Hellenist  Barnabas  of  Cyprus 
and  Paul  of  Tarsus,  seems  to  have  consisted  from  the  first  of 
converted  heathens  and  Jews.  It  thus  became  the  mother  of 
Gentile  Christendom,  as  Jerusalem  was  the  mother  and  centre 
of  Jewish.  In  Antioch,  too,  the  name  “ Christian  ” first  ap- 
peared, which  was  soon  everywhere  adopted,  as  well  denoting 
the  nature  and  mission  as  the  followers  of  Christ,  the  divine- 
human  prophet,  priest,  and  king.1 

The  other  and  older  designations  were  disciples  (of  Christ  the 
only  Master),  believers  (in  Christ  as  their  Saviour),  brethren  (as 
members  of  the  same  family  of  the  redeemed,  bound  together 
by  a love  which  springs  not  from  earth  and  will  never  cease), 
and  saints  (as  those  who  are  purified  and  consecrated  to  the 
service  of  God  and  called  to  perfect  holiness). 

1 Acts,  11  : 26  ; comp.  26  : 28,  and  1 Pet.  4:  16 


Longitude  East  25  from  Greenwich 


§ 29.  THE  CONVERSION  OF  THE  GENTILES.  281 


CHAPTER  V 

ST.  PAUL  AND  THE  CONVERSION  OF  THE  GENTILES. 

Xdpirt  &eou  et/d  o €t/xt,  Kal  7]  X^Pls  butou  V Ksvif  iyevh^Vi  a\\h 

irepia<ruT€pov  avrw v ttAvtuv  iKon'icura,  ovk  iyu  8e,  &A\a  tj  X&PIS  T0^  ip.oi. 

— 1 Cor.  15  : 10. 

Xpiarb^  * lijcrovs  fjA&tv  els  rbv  ntoyov  a/iapTwAovs  <ru<rai,  $>v  nr poor 6s  elpi  eyd> .— 
1 Tim.  1 : 15. 

“ Paul’s  mind  was  naturally  and  perfectly  adapted  to  take  up  into  itself 
and  to  develop  the  free,  universal,  and  absolute  principle  of  Christianity.” — 
Dr.  Baur  (Paul,  II.  281,  English  translation). 

“ Did  St.  Paul’s  life  end  with  his  own  life?  ....  May  we  not  rather  be- 
lieve that  in  a sense  higher  than  Chrysostom  ever  dreamt  of  [when  he  gave 
him  the  glorious  name  of  ‘ the  Heart  of  the  world  ’j,  the  pulses  of  that  mighty 
heart  are  still  the  pulses  of  the  world’s  life,  still  beat  in  these  later  ages  with 
even  greater  force  than  ever  ? ” — Dean  Stanley  (Sermons  and  Essays  on  the 
Apostolic  Age , p.  166). 


§ 29.  Sources  and  Literature  on  St.  Paul  and  his  Work. 

I.  Sources. 

1.  The  authentic  sources  : 

The  Epistles  of  Paul,  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  ch.  9 : 1-30 ; 
and  chs.  13  to  28.  Of  the  Epistles  of  Paul  the  four  most  important — 
Galatians,  Romans,  two  Corinthians — are  universally  acknowledged 
as  genuine  even  by  the  most  exacting  critics ; the  Philippians,  Phile- 
mon, Colossians,  and  Ephesians  are  admitted  by  nearly  all  critics ; 
the  Pastoral  Epistles,  especially  First  Timothy,  and  Titus,  are  more 
or  less  disputed,  but  even  they  bear  the  stamp  of  Paul’s  genius. 

On  the  coincidences  between  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles  see  the 
section  on  the  Acts.  Comp,  also  \ 22,  pp.  213  sqq. 

2.  The  legendary  and  apocryphal  sources  : 

Acta  Pauli  et  Thecl^e,  edition  in  Greek  by  E.  Grahe  (from  a Bod- 
leian MB.  in  Spicileg.  SS.  PP.f  Oxon.  1698,  tom.  I.  pp.  95-128  ; re- 
published by  Jones,  1726),  and  by  Tischendorf  (from  three  Paris  MSS. 


282 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


in  Acta  Apost.  Apocrypha , Lips.  1851) ; in  Syriac,  with  an  English 
version  by  W.  Wright  (in  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles , Lond. 
1871) ; Engl,  transl.  by  Alex.  Walker  (in  Clark’s  “ Ante-Nicene  Chris- 
tian Library,”  vol.  XYI.  279  sqq.).  Comp.  C.  Schl.au  : Die  Aden 
des  Paulus  und  der  Thecla  und  die  dltere  Thecla- Leg ende , Leipz.  1877. 

The  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla  strongly  advocate  celibacy.  They 
are  probably  of  Gnostic  origin  and  based  on  some  local  tradition. 
They  were  originally  written,  according  to  Tertullian  ( Be  Bapt.  cap. 
17,  comp.  Jerome,  Catal.  cap.  7),  by  a presbyter  in  Asia  “ out  of 
love  to  Paul,”  and  in  support  of  the  heretical  opinion  that  women 
have  the  right  to  preach  and  to  baptize  after  the  example  of  Thecla ; 
hence  the  author  was  deposed.  The  book  was  afterwards  purged  of 
its  most  obnoxious  features  and  extensively  used  in  the  Catholic 
church.  (See  the  patristic  quotations  in  Tischendorf’s  Prolegomena , 
p.  xxiv.)  Thecla  is  represented  as  a noble  virgin  of  Iconium,  in 
Lycaonia,  who  was  betrothed  to  Thamyris,  converted  by  Paul  in  her 
seventeenth  year,  consecrated  herself  to  perpetual  virginity,  was 
persecuted,  carried  to  the  stake,  and  thrown  before  wild  beasts,  but 
miraculously  delivered,  and  died  90  years  old  at  Seleucia.  In  the 
Greek  church  she  is  celebrated  as  the  first  female  martyr.  Paul  is 
described  at  the  beginning  of  this  book  (Tischend.  p.  41)  as  “little 
in  stature,  bald-headed,  bow-legged,  well  built  (or  vigorous),  with 
knitted  eye-brows,  rather  long-nosed,  full  of  grace,  appearing  now 
as  a man,  and  now  having  the  face  of  an  angel.”  From  this  descrip- 
tion Renan  has  borrowed  in  part  his  fancy-sketch  of  Paul’s  personal 
appearance. 

Acta  Pauli  (n pd£«y  IlauAov),  used  by  Origen  and  ranked  by  Euse- 
bius with  the  Antilegomena  (or  vo&a  rather).  They  are,  like  the 
Acta  Petri  (II pd£«r,  or  riepioSoi  nerpov),  a Gnostic  reconstruction  of 
the  canonical  Acts  and  ascribed  to  the  authorship  of  St.  Linus. 
Preserved  only  in  fragments. 

Acta  Petri  et  Pauli.  A Catholic  adaptation  of  an  Ebionite 
work.  The  Greek  and  Latin  text  was  published  first  in  a complete 
form  by  Thilo , Halle,  1837-’38,  the  Greek  by  Tischendorf  (who 
collated  six  MSS.)  in  his  Acta  Apost.  Apoc.  1851,  1-39 ; English 
transl.  by  Walker  in  “ Ante-Nicene  Libr.,”  XYI.  256  sqq.  This 
book  records  the  arrival  of  Paul  in  Rome,  his  meeting  with  Peter 
and  Simon  Magus,  their  trial  before  the  tribunal  of  Nero,  and  the 
martyrdom  of  Peter  by  crucifixion,  and  of  Paul  by  decapitation.  The 
legend  of  Domine  quo  vadis  is  here  recorded  of  Peter,  and  the  story 
of  Perpetua  is  interwoven  with  the  martyrdom  of  Paul. 

The  pseudo-CiiEMENTTNE  Homilies,  of  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  or  later,  give  a malignant  J udaizing  caricature  of  Paul  under 
the  disguise  of  Simon  Magus  (in  part  at  least),  and  misrepresent 
him  as  an  antinomian  arch-heretic ; while  Peter,  the  proper  hero  of 


§ 29.  CHRISTIANITY  AMONG  THE  GENTILES.  283 


this  romance,  is  glorified  as  the  apostle  of  pure,  primitive  Chris- 
tianity. 

The  Correspondence  op  Paul  and  Seneca,  mentioned  by  Jerome 
(De  vir.  ill.  c.  12)  and  Augustin  ( Ep . ad  Maced.  153,  al.  54),  and 
often  copied,  though  with  many  variations,  edited  byFabricius,  Cod. 
Apocr.  N.  T.,  and  in  several  editions  of  Seneca.  It  consists  of  eight 
letters  of  Seneca  and  six  of  Paul.  They  are  very  poor  in  thought 
and  style,  full  of  errors  of  chronology  and  history,  and  undoubtedly 
a forgery.  They  arose  from  the  correspondence  of  the  moral  maxims 
of  Seneca  with  those  of  Paul,  which  is  more  apparent  than  real,  and 
from  the  desire  to  recommend  the  Stoic  philosopher  to  the  esteem 
of  the  Christians,  or  to  recommend  Christianity  to  the  students  of 
Seneca  and  the  Stoic  philosophy.  Paul  was  protected  at  Corinth 
by  Seneca’s  brother,  Gallio  (Acts  18  : 12-16),  and  might  have  become 
acquainted  with  the  philosopher  who  committed  suicide  at  Rome  in 
65,  but  there  is  no  trace  of  such  acquaintance.  Comp.  Amed£e 
Fleury  : Saint- Paul  et  Seneque  (Paris,  1853,  2 vols.);  C.  Aubertin  : 
Etude  critique  sur  les  rapports  suppose  entre  Seneque  et  Saint- Paul 
(Par.  1887) ; F.  C.  Baur  : Seneca  und  Paulus,  1858  and  1876 ; Reuss  : 
art.  Seneca  in  Herzog,  vol.  XIV.  273  sqq. ; Lightfoot  : Excursus  in 
Com.  on  Philippians,  pp  268-331 ; art.  Paul  and  Seneca,  in  “ West- 
minster Review,”  Lond.  1880,  pp.  309  sqq. 

II.  Biographical  and  Critical. 

Bishop  Pearson  (d.  1686)  : Annales  Paulini.  Lond.  1688.  In  the  vari- 
ous editions  of  his  works,  and  also  separately : Annals  of  St.  Pauly 
transl.  with  geographical  and  critical  notes.  Cambridge,  1825. 

Lord  Lyttleton  (d.  1773)  : The  Conversion  and  Apostleship  of  St.  Paul. 
3d  ed.  Lond.  1747.  Apologetic  as  an  argument  for  the  truth  of 
Christianity  from  the  personal  experience  of  the  author. 

Archdeacon  William  Paley  (d.  1805) : fforce  Paulince : or  The  Truth 
of  the  Scripture  History  of  Paul  evinced  by  a comparison  of  the  Epis- 
tles which  bear  his  name , with  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  with  one 
another.  Lond.  1790  (and  subsequent  editions).  Still  valuable  for 
apologetic  purposes. 

J.  Hemsen  : Der  Apostel  Paulus.  Gott.  1830. 

Carl  Schrader  : Der  Apostel  Paulus.  Leipz.  1830-’36  5 Parts.  Ra- 
tionalistic. 

F.  Chr.  Baur  (d.  1860)  : Paulus,  der  Apostel  Jesu  Christi.  Tub.  1845, 
second  ed.  by  E.  Zeller , Leipzig,  1866-’67,  in  2 vols.  Transl.  into 
English  by  A llan  Menzies.  Lond.  (Williams  & Norgate)  1873  and  ’75, 
2 vols.  This  work  of  the  great  leader  of  the  philosopliico-critical 
reconstruction  of  the  Apostolic  Age  (we  may  call  him  the  modem 
Marcion)  was  preceded  by  several  special  treatises  on  the  Christ- 
Party  in  Corinth  (1831),  on  the  Pastoral  Epistles  (1835),  on  the 


284 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Epistle  to  the  Romans  (1836),  and  a Latin  programme  on  Stephen’s 
address  before  the  Sanhedrin  (1829).  It  marks  an  epoch  in  the 
literature  on  Paul  and  opened  new  avenues  of  research.  It  is  the 
standard  work  of  the  Tubingen  school  of  critics. 

Conybeare  and  Howson  : The  Life  and  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  Lond.  1853, 
2 vols.,  and  N.  York,  1854;  2d  ed.  Lond.  1856,  and  later  editions; 
also  an  abridgment  in  one  vol.  A very  useful  and  popular  work, 
especially  on  the  geography  of  Paul’s  travels.  Comp,  also  Dean 
Howson  : Character  of  St.  Paul  (Lond.  1862  ; 2d  ed.  1864) ; Scenes 
from  the  Life  of  St.  Paul  (1867)  ; Metaphors  of  St.  Paul  (1868)  ; The 
Companions  of  St.  Paul  (1871).  Most  of  these  books  were  repub- 
lished in  America. 

Ad.  Monod  (d.  1856)  : Saint  Paul.  Six  sermons.  See  his  Sermons , 
Paris,  1860,  vol.  H.  121-296.  The  same  in  German  and  English. 

W.  F.  Besser  : Paulus.  Leipz.  1861.  English  transl.  by  F.  Bultmann , 
with  Introduction  by  J.  S.  Howson.  Lond.  and  N.  York,  1864. 

F.  Bungener  : St.  Paul,  sa  vie , son  oeuvre  et  see  epitres.  Paris,  1865. 

A.  Haesrath  : Her  Apostel  Paulus.  Heidelb.  1865  ; 2d  ed.  1872.  Comp, 
also  his  AT.  T.liche  Zeitgeschichte , Part  III. 

M.  Krenkel  : Paulus , der  Apostel  der  Heiden.  Leipz.  1869. 

Ernest  Renan  : Saint  Paul.  Paris,  1869.  Transl.  from  the  French  by 
J.  Lockwood,  N.  York,  1869.  Very  fresh  and  entertaining,  but  full 
of  fancies  and  errors. 

Thomas  Lewin  (author  of  “ Fasti  Sacri  ”)  : The  Life  and  Epistles  of  St. 
Paul,  new  ed.  Lond.  and  N.  York,  1875,  2 vols.  A magnificent  work 
of  many  years’  labor,  with  370  illustrations. 

Canon  F.  W.  Farrar  : The  Life  and  Work  of  St.  Paul.  Lond.  and  N. 
York,  1879,  2 vols.  Learned  and  eloquent. 

W.  M.  Taylor  : Paul  as  a Missionary.  N.  York,  1881. 

As  biographies,  the  works  of  Conybeare  and  Howson,  Lewin,  and 
Farrar  are  the  most  complete  and  instructive. 

Also  the  respective  sections  in  the  Histories  of  the  Ap.  Age  by 
Neander,  Lechler,  Thiersch,  Lange,  Schaff  (226-347  and  634-640), 
Pressens6. 


III.  Chronological. 

Thomas  Lewin  : Fasti  Sacri,  a Key  to  the  Chronology  of  the  New  Testament . 

London,  1865.  Chronological  Tables  from  b.o.  70  to  a.d.  70. 
Wieseler  : Chronologie  des  apostolischen  Zeitalters.  Gottingen,  1848. 


IV.  Doctrinal  and  Exegettcal. 

I j.  Usteri  : Entwicklung  des  Paulinischen  LehrbegHffs.  Zurich,  1824  \ 
6th  ed.  1851. 


§ 29.  CHRISTIANITY  AMONG  THE  GENTILES.  285 


A.  F.  Dahne  : EntwicJclung  des  Paulinischen  Lehrbegriffs.  Halle,  1835. 

Baur  : Paulus.  See  above. 

R.  A.  Lipsius  : Die  Paulinische  Reclitfertigun gslehre.  Leipz.  1853. 

C.  Holsten  : Zum  Evangelium  des  Paulus  und  des  Petrus,  liostock,  1868. 
This  book,  contains : 1.  An  essay  on  the  Christusvision  des  Paulus 
middle  Genesis  des  paulinischen  Evangeliums,  which  had  previously 
appeared  in  Hilgenfeld’s  “ Zeitschrift,”  1861,  but  is  here  enlarged 
by  a reply  to  Beyschlag ; 2.  Die  Messiasvision  des  Petrus  (new) ; 
3.  An  analysis  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  (1859) ; 4.  A discussion 
of  the  meaning  of  in  Paul’s  system  (1855).  By  the  same  : Das 
Evangelium  des  Paulus.  Part  I.  Berlin,  1880. 

Th.  Simar  (R.  C.) : Die  Theologie  des  heil.  Paulus.  Freiberg,  1864. 

Ernesti  : Die  Etliik  des  Ap.  Paulus.  Braunschweig,  1868 ; 3d  ed. 
1880. 

R.  Schmidt  : Die  Ckristologie  des  Ap.  Paulus.  Gott.,  1870. 

Matthew  Arnold  : St.  Paul  and  Protestantism.  Lond.  1870 ; 3d  ed. 
1875. 

'William  I.  Irons  (Episcop.)  : Christianity  as  taught  by  St.  Paul.  Eight 
Bampton  Lectures  for  1870.  Oxf.  and  Lond.  1871 ; 2d  ed.  1876. 

A.  Sabatier  : L'apotre  Paul.  Esquisse  d'une  histoire  de  sa  pensee.  Strasb. 
and  Paris,  1870. 

Otto  Pflelderer  (Prof,  in  Berlin) : Dei'  Paulinismus.  Leipzig,  1873. 
Follows  Baur  and  Holsten  in  developing  the  doctrinal  system  of 
Paul  from  his  conversion.  English  translation  by  E.  Peters.  Lond. 
1877,  2 vols.  Lectures  on  the  Influence  of  the  Apostle  Paul  on  the  De- 
velopment of  Christianity  (The  Hibbert  Lectures).  Trsl.  by  J.  Fr. 
Smith.  Lond.  and  N.  Y.  1885.  Also  his  Urchristenthum , 1887. 

C.  Weizsacker  : D.  Apost.  Zeitalter  (1886),  pp.  68-355. 

Fr.  Bethge  : Die  Paulinischen  Reden  der  Apostelgesch.  Gottingen,  1887. 

Y.  Commentaries. 

The  Commentators  on  Paul’s  Epistles  (in  whole  or  in  part)  are  so 
numerous  that  we  can  only  mention  some  of  the  most  important : 

1.  On  all  the  Pauline  Epp. : Calvin,  Beza,  Estius  (R.  C.),  Corn, 
a Lapide  (R.  C.),  Grotius,  Wetstein,  Bengel,  Olshausen,  De 
Wette,  Meter,  Lange  (Am.  ed.  enlarged),  Ewald,  von  Hofmann, 
Reuss  (French),  Alford,  Wordsworth,  Speaker’s  Com.,  Ellicott 
{Pop.  Com.),  Schaff  [Pop.  Com.,  vol.  III.  1882).  Compare  also  P. 
J.  Gloag  : Introduction  to  the  Pauline  Epistles.  Edinburgh,  1874. 

2.  On  single  Epp. : Romans  by  Tholuck  (5th  ed.  1856),  Fritzsche 
(3  vols.  in  Latin),  Reiche,  Ruckert,  Philippi  (3d  ed.  1866,  English 
transl.  by  Banks,  1878-79,  2 vols.),  Mos.  Stuart,  Turner,  Hodge, 
Forbes,  Jowett,  Shedd  (1879),  Godet  ( Uepitre  aux  Romains,  1879 
and  1880,  2 vols). — Corinthians  by  Neander,  Osiandeb,  Hodge,  Stan- 
ley, Hfjnbici,  Edwards,  Godet,  Ellicott. — Galatians  by  Luther, 


286 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Winer,  Weeseler,  Hilgenfeld,  Holsten,  Jowett,  Eadie,  Ellicott, 
IjIGHTFoot. — Ephesians  by  Harless,  Matthtes,  Stier,  Hodge,  Eadie, 
Ellicott,  J.  L.  Davies. — Other  minor  Epp.  explained  by  Bleek 
(Col.,  Philemon , and  Eph.),  Koch  ( Thess .),  van  Hengel  (Phil.), 
Eadie  (Col.),  Ellicott  (Phil.,  Col.,  Thess.,  Philem .),  Lightfoot 
(Phil.,  Col.,  Philemon). — Pastoral  Epp.  by  Mafthies,  Mack  (R.  C.), 
Beck  (ed.  Lindenmeyer,  1879),  Holtzmann  (1880),  Fairbairn,  Elli- 
cott, Weiss  (1886),  Knoke  (1887),  Rolling  (1887). 

3.  The  Commentaries  on  the  second  part  of  Acts  by  De  Wette, 
Meter,  Baumgarten,  Alexander,  Hackett,  Lechler,  Gloag, 
Plumptre,  Jacobson,  Lumby,  Howson  and  Spence. 


§ 30.  Paul  before  his  Conversion . 

His  Natural  Outfit. 

We  now  approach  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  who  decided 
the  victory  of  Christianity  as  a universal  religion,  who  labored 
more,  both  in  word  and  deed,  than  all  his  colleagues,  and  who 
stands  out,  in  lonely  grandeur,  the  most  remarkable  and  influen- 
tial character  in  history.  His  youth  as  well  as  his  closing  years 
are  involved  in  obscurity,  save  that  he  began  a persecutor  and 
ended  a martyr,  but  the  midday  of  his  life  is  better  known  than 
that  of  any  other  apostle,  and  is  replete  with  burning  thoughts 
and  noble  deeds  that  can  never  die,  and  gather  strength  with  the 
progress  of  the  gospel  from  age  to  age  and  country  to  country. 

Saul  or  Paul 1 was  of  strictly  Jewish  parentage,  but  was  born, 
a few  years  after  Christ,9  in  the  renowned  Grecian  commercial 

1 “ Paul  ” (Little)  is  merely  the  Hellenized  or  Latinized  form  for  his  Hebrew 
name  “ Saul”  (Desired;,  and  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  either  with  his  own 
conversion,  or  with  the  conversion  of  Sergius  Paulus  of  Cyprus.  There  are 
many  similar  instances  of  double  names  among  the  Jews  of  that  time,  as 
Hillel  and  Pollio,  Cephas  and  Peter,  John  and  Mark,  Barsabbas  and  Justus, 
Simeon  and  Niger,  Silas  and  Silvanus.  Paul  may  have  received  his  Latin 
name  in  early  youth  in  Tarsus,  as  a Roman  citizen  ; Paulus  being  the  cogno- 
men of  several  distinguished  Roman  families,  as  the  gens  JEmilia,  Fahia, 
Julia , Sergia.  He  used  it  in  his  intercourse  with  the  Gentiles  and  in  all  his 
Epistles.  See  Hist.  Apost.  Ch.,  p.  226,  and  my  annotations  to  Lange  on 
Romans  1:1,  pp.  57  and  58. 

8 When  Paul  wrote  to  Philemon,  A.D.  63,  he  was  an  aged  man  (TrpcaPvrris, 
ver.  9),  that  is,  about  or  above  sixty.  According  to  Hippocrates  a man  was 
called  Tfptafivnis  from  forty-nino  to  fifty-six,  and  after  that  ytpwv,  senex.  In  a 


§ 30.  PAUL  BEFORE  IIIS  CONVERSION. 


287 


and  literary  city  of  Tarsus,  in  the  province  of  Cilicia,  and  in- 
herited the  rights  of  a Roman  citizen.  He  received  a learned 
Jewish  education  at  Jerusalem  in  the  school  of  the  Pharisean 
Rabbi,  Gamaliel,  a grandson  of  Hillel,  not  remaining  an  entire 
stranger  to  Greek  literature,  as  his  style,  his  dialectic  method, 
his  allusions  to  heathen  religion  and  philosophy,  and  his  occa- 
sional quotations  from  heathen  poets  show.  Thus,  a “ Hebrew 
of  the  Hebrews,” 1 yet  at  the  same  time  a native  Hellenist,  and 
a Roman  citizen,  he  combined  in  himself,  so  to  speak,  the  three 
great  nationalities  of  the  ancient  world,  and  was  endowed  with 
all  the  natural  qualifications  for  a universal  apostleship.  He 
could  argue  with  the  Pharisees  as  a son  of  Abraham,  of  the 
tribe  of  Benjamin,  and  as  a disciple  of  the  renowned  Gamaliel, 
surnamed  “the  Glory  of  the  Law.”  He  could  address  the 
Greeks  in  their  own  beautiful  tongue  and  with  the  convincing 
force  of  their  logic.  Clothed  with  the  dignity  and  majesty  of 
the  Roman  people,  he  could  travel  safely  over  the  whole  empire 
with  the  proud  watchword  : Civis  Romanus  sum . 

This  providential  outfit  for  his  future  work  made  him  for  a 
while  the  most  dangerous  enemy  of  Christianity,  but  after  his 
conversion  its  most  useful  promoter.  The  weapons  of  destruc- 
tion were  turned  into  weapons  of  construction.  The  engine  was 
reversed,  and  the  direction  changed  ; but  it  remained  the  same 
engine,  and  its  power  was  increased  under  the  new  inspira- 
tion. 


friendly  letter  to  a younger  friend  and  pupil  the  expression  must  not  be  pressed. 
Walter  Scott  speaks  of  himself  as  “an  old  grey  man”  at  fifty-five.  Paul  was 
still  a “youth”  (yeavlas,  Acts  7 : 58)  at  the  stoning  of  Stephen,  which  proba- 
bly took  place  in  37 ; and  although  this  term  is  likewise  vaguely  used,  yet  as 
he  was  then  already  clothed  with  a most  important  mission  by  the  Sanhedrin, 
he  must  have  been  about  or  over  thirty  years  of  age.  Philo  extends  the  limits 
of  veavias  from  twenty-one  to  twenty-eight,  Xenophon  to  forty.  Comp.  Light- 
foot  on  Philemon , v.  9 (p.  405),  and  Farrar,  I.,  13,  14. 

1 Phil.  3:5.  A Hebrew  by  descent  and  education,  though  a Hellenist  or 
Jew  of  the  dispersion  by  birth,  Acts  22  : 3.  Probably  his  parents  were  Pales- 
tinians. This  would  explain  the  erroneous  tradition  preserved  by  Jerome 
( De  vir.  iU.  c.  5),  that  Paul  was  bom  at  Giscala  in  Galilee  (now  El-Jish),  and 
after  the  capture  of  the  place  by  the  Romans  emigrated  with  his  parents  to 
Tarsus.  But  the  capture  did  not  take  place  till  a.d.  67. 


288 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


The  intellectual  and  moral  endowment  of  Saul  was  of  the 
highest  order.  The  sharpest  thinking  was  blended  with  the 
tenderest  feeling,  the  deepest  mind  with  the  strongest  will.  He 
had  Semitic  fervor,  Greek  versatility,  and  Roman  energy. 
Whatever  he  was,  he  was  with  his  whole  soul.  He  wTas  totus  in 
illis , a man  of  one  idea  and  of  one  purpose,  first  as  a Jew,  then 
as  a Christian.  His  nature  was  martial  and  heroic.  Fear  was 
unknown  to  him — except  the  fear  of  God,  which  made  him  fear- 
less of  man.  When  yet  a youth,  he  had  risen  to  high  eminence ; 
and  had  he  remained  a Jew,  he  might  have  become  a greater 
Rabbi  than  even  Hillel  or  Gamaliel,  as  he  surpassed  them  both 
in  original  genius  and  fertility  of  thought. 

Paul  was  the  only  scholar  among  the  apostles.  He  never 
displays  his  learning,  considering  it  of  no  account  as  compared 
with  the  excellency  of  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  for  whom  he 
suffered  the  loss  of  all  things,1  but  he  could  not  conceal  it,  and 
turned  it  to  the  best  use  after  his  conversion.  Peter  and  John 
had  natural  genius,  but  no  scholastic  education  ; Paul  had  both, 
and  thus  became  the  founder  of  Christian  theology  and  philoso- 

p'>y- 

His  Education. 

His  training  was  thoroughly  Jewish,  rooted  and  grounded  in 
the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Covenant,  and  those  traditions  of  the 
elders  which  culminated  in  the  Talmud.2  He  knew  the  Hebrew 
and  Greek  Bible  almost  by  heart.  In  his  argumentative  epis- 
tles, when  addressing  Jewish  converts,  he  quotes  from  the  Pen- 
tateuch, the  Prophets,  the  Psalms,  now  literally,  now  freely, 
sometimes  ingeniously  combining  several  passages  or  verbal  re- 
miniscences, or  reading  between  the  lines  in  a manner  which 
betrays  the  profound  student  and  mastei  of  the  hidden  depths 
of  the  word  of  God,  and  throws  a flood  of  light  on  obscure 


1 Comp,  the  sublime  passage,  Phil.  3 : 8-10,  and  1 Cor.  2:1,2. 

5 Gal.  4 : 14  : “I  made  progress  in  Judaism  beyond  many  of  mine  own  age 
in  my  nation,  being  more  exceedingly  zealous  for  the  traditions  of  my 
fathers.” 


30.  PAUL  BEFORE  IIIS  CONVERSION. 


289 


passages.1 2  He  was  quite  familiar  with  the  typical  and  allegori- 
cal  methods  of  interpretation  ; and  he  occasionally  and  incident- 
ally uses  Scriptural  arguments,  or  illustrations  rather,  which 
strike  a sober  scholar  as  far-fetched  and  fanciful,  though  they 
were  quite  conclusive  to  a Jewish  reader.3  But  he  never  bases 
a truth  on  such  an  illustration  without  an  independent  argu- 
ment ; he  never  indulges  in  the  exegetical  impositions  and  frivo- 
lities of  those  “ letter- worshipping  Rabbis  who  prided  them- 
selves on  suspending  dogmatic  mountains  by  textual  hairs.” 
Through  the  revelation  of  Christ,  the  Old  Testament,  instead  of 
losing  itself  in  the  desert  of  the  Talmud  or  the  labyrinth  of  the 
Kabbala,  became  to  him  a book  of  life,  full  of  types  and  promises 
of  the  great  facts  and  truths  of  the  gospel  salvation.  In  Abra- 
ham he  saw  the  father  of  the  faithful,  in  Habakkuk  a preacher 
of  justification  by  faith,  in  the  paschal  lamb  a type  of  Christ 
slain  for  the  sins  of  the  world,  in  the  passage  of  Israel  through 
the  Red  Sea  a prefigurement  of  Christian  baptism,  and  in  the 
manna  of  the  wilderness  a type  of  the  bread  of  life  in  the  Lord’s 
Supper. 

The  Hellenic  culture  of  Paul  is  a matter  of  dispute,  denied 
by  some,  unduly  exalted  by  others.  He  no  doubt  acquired  in 
the  home  of  his  boyhood  and  early  manhood  3 a knowledge  of 
the  Greek  language,  for  Tarsus  was  at  that  time  the  seat  of  one 
of  the  three  universities  of  the  Roman  empire,  surpassing  in 
some  respects  even  Athens  and  Alexandria,  and  furnished  tutors 
to  the  imperial  family.  His  teacher,  Gamaliel,  was  compara- 
tively free  from  the  rabbinical  abhorrence  and  contempt  of 
heathen  literature.  After  his  conversion  he  devoted  his  life  to 
the  salvation  of  the  heathen,  and  lived  for  years  at  Tarsus, 

1 Scripture  references  and  allusions  abound  in  the  Galatians,  Romans,  and 
Corinthians,  but  are  wanting  in  the  Thessalonians,  Colossians,  and  Philemon, 
and  in  his  address  to  the  heathen  hearers  at  Athens,  whom  he  referred  to 
their  own  poets  rather  than  to  Moses  and  the  prophets. 

2 As  the  reasoning  from  the  singular  or  rather  collective  tnrepua  (zero)  in 
Gal.  3:16,  the  allegorical  interpretation  of  Hagar  and  Sarah,  4 : 22  sqq.,  and 
the  rock  in  the  wilderness,  1 Cor.  10  : 1-4.  See  the  commentaries. 

3 Comp.  Gal.  1 : 21 ; Acts  9 : 30 ; 11  : 25. 


290 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Ephesus,  Corinth,  and  other  cities  of  Greece,  and  became  a 
Greek  to  the  Greeks  in  order  to  save  them.  It  is  scarcely  con- 
ceivable that  a man  of  universal  human  sympathies,  and  so  wide 
awake  to  the  deepest  problems  of  thought,  as  he,  should  have 
under  such  circumstances  taken  no  notice  of  the  vast  treasures 
of  Greek  philosophy,  poetry,  and  history.  He  would  certainly 
do  what  we  expect  every  missionary  to  China  or  India  to  do 
from  love  to  the  race  which  he  is  to  benefit,  and  from  a desire 
to  extend  his  usefulness.  Paul  very  aptly,  though  only  inci- 
dentally, quotes  three  times  from  Greek  poets,  not  only  a pro- 
verbial maxim  from  Menander,1  and  a hexameter  from  Epimen- 
ides,2 which  may  have  passed  into  common  use,  but  also  a half- 
hexameter with  a connecting  particle,  which  he  must  have  read 
in  the  tedious  astronomical  poem  of  his  countryman,  Aratus 
(about  b.c.  270),  or  in  the  sublime  hymn  of  Clean thes  to  Jupi- 
ter, in  both  of  which  the  passage  occurs.3  He  borrows  some  of 

1 1 Cor.  15  : 33.  <p&elpovaiv  tf&ri  XP7?°'T®  6ui\lai  Kauai. 

“ Evil  associations  corrupt  good  manners.” 

2 Tit.  1 : 12.  Kprjres  a el  if/evarai,  kukcl  frrjpla,  yaarepes  apyal. 

“Cretans  are  liars  alway,  bad  beasts,  and  indolent  gluttons.” 

As  Epimenides  was  himself  a Cretan,  this  contemptuous  depreciation  of  his 
countrymen  gave  rise  to  the  syllogistic  puzzle  : “ Epimenides  calls  the  Cre- 
tans liars ; Epimenides  was  a Cretan  : therefore  Epimenides  was  a liar  : there- 
fore the  Cretans  were  not  liars  : therefore  Epimenides  was  not  a liar,”  etc. 

6 Acts  17  : 28.  T ox)  [poetic  for  toutou]  yap  Kal  yi vos  iayev. 

“ For  we  are  also  His  (God’s)  offspring.” 

The  passage  occurs  literally  in  the  Phenomena  of  Aratus,  v.  5,  in  the  fol- 
lowing connection  : 

. . . . “ We  all  greatly  need  Zeus, 

For  we  are  his  offspring  ; full  of  grace,  he  grants  men 
Tokens  of  favor  ” .... 

The  Stoic  poet,  Cleanthes  {Hymn,  in  Jovem,  5)  uses  the  same  expression  in 
an  address  to  Jupiter  : 'E/c  aov  yhp  yevos  (<ry<v,  and  in  the  Golden  Poemy 
beiov  yap  yivos  4(tt\  fSpoTolcriv.  We  may  also  quote  a parallel  passage  of  Pin- 
dar, Nem.  VI.,  which  has  been  overlooked  by  commentators  : 

*Ev  auSpcou,  ev  *yeVos,  e/c  yias  tie  irveoyev  yarpbs  iLy<f>6repoi. 

“ One  race  of  men  and  gods,  from  one  mother  breathe  we  all.” 

It  is  evident,  however,  that  all  these  passages  were  understood  by  their 
heathen  authors  in  a materialistic  and  pantheistic  sense,  which  would  make 
nature  or  the  earth  the  mother  of  gods  and  men.  Paul  in  his  masterly  address 


§ 30.  PAUL  BEFORE  IIIS  CONVERSION. 


291 


his  favorite  metaphors  from  the  Grecian  games ; lie  disputed 
with  Greek  philosophers  of  different  schools  and  addressed  them 
from  the  Areopagus  with  consummate  wisdom  and  adaptation  to 
the  situation  ; some  suppose  that  he  alludes  even  to  the  termin- 
ology of  the  Stoic  philosophy  when  he  speaks  of  the  “ rudiments  ” 
or  “ elements  of  the  world.”  1 lie  handles  the  Greek  language, 
not  indeed  with  classical  purity  and  elegance,  yet  with  an  almost 
creative  vigor,  transforming  it  into  an  obedient  organ  of  new 
ideas,  and  pressing  into  his  service  the  oxymoron,  the  parono- 
masia, the  litotes,  and  other  rhetorical  figures.2  Yet  all  this 
does  by  no  means  prove  a regular  study  or  extensive  knowledge 
of  Greek  literature,  but  is  due  in  part  to  native  genius.  His 
more  than  Attic  urbanity  and  gentlemanly  refinement  which 
breathe  in  his  Epistles  to  Philemon  and  the  Pliilippians,  must 
be  traced  to  the  influence  of  Christianity  rather  than  his  inter- 
course with  accomplished  Greeks.  His  Hellenic  learning  seems 
to  have  been  only  casual,  incidental,  and  altogether  subordinate 
to  his  great  aim.  In  this  respect  he  differed  widely  from  the 
learned  Josephus,  who  affected  Attic  purity  of  style,  and  from 
Philo,  who  allowed  the  revealed  truth  of  the  Mosaic  religion  to 
be  controlled,  obscured,  and  perverted  by  Hellenic  philosophy. 
Philo  idealized  and  explained  away  the  Old  Testament  by  alle- 
gorical impositions  which  he  substituted  for  grammatical  expo- 
sitions ; Paul  spiritualized  the  Old  Testament  and  drew  out  its 
deepest  meaning.  Philo’s  Judaism  evaporated  in  speculative 

to  the  Athenians,  without  endorsing  the  error,  recognizes  the  element  of 
truth  in  pantheism,  viz. , the  divine  origin  of  man  and  the  immanence  of  God 
in  the  world  and  in  humanity. 

1 Ta  oroixeta  rov  k6<t/j.ov , Gal.  4:3,  9.  So  Hilgenfeld,  Eirdeitung , p.  223. 
Thiersch  assumes  (p.  112)  that  Paul  was  familiar  with  the  Nicomachean  Ethics 
of  Aristotle,  and  that  his  dialectics  is  classical  rather  than  rabbinical ; but 
this  is  scarcely  correct.  In  Romans  5 : 16,  18,  he  uses  the  word  Sirca'ico/ua  in 
the  Aristotelian  sense  of  legal  adjustment  ( Rechtsausgleichung ).  See  Eth. 
Nicom.  v.  10,  and  Rothe’s  monograph  on  Rom.  5 : 12-21.  Baur  compares 
Paul’s  style  with  that  of  Thucydides. 

2 Farrar,  I.  629  sq.,  counts  “ upwards  of  fifty  specimens  of  thirty  Greek  rhe- 
torical figures  in  St.  Paul,”  which  certainly  disprove  the  assertion  of  Renan 
that  Paul  could  never  have  received  even  elementary  lessons  in  grammar  and 
rhetoric  at  Tarsus. 


292 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


abstractions,  Paul’s  Judaism  was  elevated  and  transformed  into 
Christian  realities. 


His  Zeal  for  Judaism. 

Saul  was  a Pharisee  of  the  strictest  sect,  not  indeed  of  the 
hypocritical  type,  so  witheringly  rebuked  by  our  Saviour,  but  of 
the  honest,  truth-loving  and  truth-seeking  sort,  like  that  of  Nico- 
demus  and  Gamaliel.  His  very  fanaticism  in  persecution  arose 
from  the  intensity  of  his  conviction  and  his  zeal  for  the  religion 
of  his  fathers.  He  persecuted  in  ignorance,  and  that  diminished, 
though  it  did  not  abolish,  his  guilt.  He  probably  never  saw  or 
heard  Jesus  until  he  appeared  to  him  at  Damascus.  He  may 
have  been  at  Tarsus  at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion  and  resurrec- 
tion.1 But  with  his  Pharisaic  education  he  regarded  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  like  his  teachers,  as  a false  Messiah,  a rebel,  a blas- 
phemer, who  was  justly  condemned  to  death.  And  he  acted 
according  to  his  conviction.  He  took  the  most  prominent  part 
in  the  persecution  of  Stephen  and  delighted  in  his  death.  Not 
satisfied  with  this,  he  procured  from  the  Sanhedrin,  which  had 
the  oversight  of  all  the  synagogues  and  disciplinary  punishments 
for  offences  against  the  law,  full  power  to  persecute  and  arrest 
the  scattered  disciples.  Thus  armed,  he  set  out  for  Damascus, 
the  capital  of  Syria,  which  numbered  many  synagogues.  He 
was  determined  to  exterminate  the  dangerous  sect  from  the  face 
of  the  earth,  for  the  glory  of  God.  But  the  height  of  his  oppo- 
sition  was  the  beginning  of  his  devotion  to  Christianity. 

1 1 Cor.  9 : 1 refers  to  the  vision  of  Christ  at  Damascus.  In  2 Cor.  5 : 16 : 
“ though  we  have  known  Christ  after  the  flesh,  yet  now  henceforth  know  we 
him  no  more,”  the  particles  el  ical  ( quamquam , even  though,  wenn  auch)  seem 
to  chronicle  a fact,  as  distinct  from  Kal  el  ( etiam  si,  even  if,  sdbst  wenn),  which 
puts  an  hypothesis  ; but  the  stress  lies  on  the  difference  between  an  external, 
carnal  knowledge  of  Christ  in  his  humility  and  earthly  relations  or  a super- 
ficial acquaintance  from  hearsay,  and  a spiritual,  experimental  knowledge  of 
Christ  in  his  glory.  Farrar  (I.  73  sqq.),  reasons  that  if  Paul  had  really  known 
and  heard  Jesus,  he  would  have  been  converted  at  once. 


§ 30.  PAUL  BEFORE  IIIS  CONVERSION. 


293 


His  External  Relations  and  Personal  Appearance. 

On  the  subordinate  questions  of  Paul’s  external  condition 
and  relations  we  have  no  certain  information.  Being  a Roman 
citizen,  he  belonged  to  the  respectable  class  of  society,  but  must 
have  been  poor ; for  he  depended  for  support  on  a trade  which 
he  learned  in  accordance  with  rabbinical  custom ; it  was  the 
trade  of  tent-making,  very  common  in  Cilicia,  and  not  profitable 
except  in  large  cities.1 

He  had  a sister  living  at  Jerusalem  whose  son  was  instrumen- 
tal in  saving  his  life.2 

He  was  probably  never  married.  Some  suppose  that  he  was 
a widower.  Jewish  and  rabbinical  custom,  the  completeness  of 
his  moral  character,  his  ideal  conception  of  marriage  as  reflect- 
ing the  mystical  union  of  Christ  with  his  church,  his  exhorta- 
tions to  conjugal,  parental,  and  filial  duties,  seem  to  point  to  ex- 
perimental knowledge  of  domestic  life.  But  as  a Christian 
missionary  moving  from  place  to  place,  and  exposed  to  all  sorts 
of  hardship  and  persecution,  he  felt  it  his  duty  to  abide  alone.3 

1 He  is  called  a tent-maker,  o-ktivottoiSs,  Acts  18  :3.  Tents  were  mostly 
made  of  the  coarse  hair  of  the  Cilician  goat  ( Ki\Ikios  rpdyos , which  also  denotes 
a coarse  man),  and  needed  by  shepherds,  travellers,  sailors,  and  soldiers. 
The  same  material  was  also  used  for  mantelets,  shoes,  and  beds.  The  Cili- 
cian origin  of  this  article  is  perpetuated  in  the  Latin  riticium  and  the  French 
cilice , which  means  hair-cloth.  Gamaliel  is  the  author  of  the  maxim  that 
“ learning  of  any  kind  unaccompanied  by  a trade  ends  in  nothing  and  leads  to 
sin.” 

2 Acts  23  : 16. 

3 In  1 Cor.  9 : 5 (written  in  57)  he  claims  the  right  to  lead  a married  life, 
like  Peter  and  the  other  apostles,  and  the  brethren  of  the  Lord  ; but  in  1 
Cor.  7 : 7,  8 he  gives  for  himself  in  his  peculiar  position  the  preference  to 
single  life.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Erasmus,  and  others  supposed  that  he 
was  married,  and  understood  Syzyge,  in  Phil.  4 : 3,  to  be  his  wife.  Ewald 
regards  him  as  a widower  who  lost  his  wife  before  his  conversion  (VI.  341). 
So  also  Farrar  (I.  80)  who  infers  from  1 Cor.  7 : 8 that  Paul  classed  himself 
with  widowers ; “I  say,  therefore,  to  the  unmarried  [to  widowers,  for  whom 
there  is  no  special  Greek  word]  and  widows,  it  is  good  for  them  if  they  abide 
even  as  I.”  He  lays  stress  on  the  fact  that  the  Jews  in  all  ages  attached  great 
importance  to  marriage  as  a moral  duty  (Gen.  1 : 28),  and  preferred  early 
marriage;  he  also  maintains  (I.  169)  that  Paul,  being  a member  of  the 
Sanhedrin  (as  he  gave  his  vote  for  the  condemnation  of  the  Christians,  Acts 


294 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


He  sacrificed  the  blessings  of  home  and  family  to  the  advance* 
ment  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ.1 

His  “ bodily  presence  was  weak,  and  his  speech  contemptible  ” 
(of  no  value),  in  the  superficial  judgment  of  the  Corinthians, 
who  missed  the  rhetorical  ornaments,  yet  could  not  help  admit- 
ting that  his  “ letters  were  weighty  and  strong.” 3 Some  of  the 
greatest  men  have  been  small  in  size,  and  some  of  the  purest 

26  : 10),  must  have  had,  according  to  the  Gemara,  a family  of  his  own.  Renan 
fancies  (ch.  VI.)  that  Paul  contracted  a more  than  spiritual  union  with  sister 
Lydia  at  Philippi,  and  addressed  her  in  Phil.  4 : 3 as  his  <rv£uye  yWjo-ie,  that  is, 
as  his  true  co-worker  or  partner  ( conjux ),  since  it  is  not  likely  that  he  would 
have  omitted  her  when  he  mentioned,  in  the  preceding  verse,  two  deaconesses 
otherwise  unknown,  Euodia  and  Syntyche.  The  word  <ru(uyos,  as  a noun, 
may  be  either  masculine  or  feminine,  and  may  either  mean  generally  an 
associate,  a co-worker  (“yoke-fellow”  in  the  E.  V.),  or  be  a proper  name. 
Several  persons  have  been  suggested,  Epaphroditus,  Timothy,  Silas,  Luke. 
But  Paul  probably  means  a man,  named  2,v(uyos,  and  plays  upon  the  word  : 
“ Yokefellow  by  name  and  yoke-fellow  in  deed.”  Comp,  a similar  parono- 
masia in  Philem.  10,  11  (’O v-haiuov,  i.  e.,  Helpful,— &xPria"rovi  €i}xpv<rrov,  un- 
profitable, profitable).  See  the  notes  of  Meyer  and  Lange  (Braune  and  Hackett) 
on  these  passages. 

1 This  sublime  loneliness  of  Paul  is  well  expressed  in  a poem,  Saint  Paul , 
by  Frederic  W.  H.  Myers  (1868),  from  which  we  may  be  permitted  to  quote  a 
few  lines : 

“ Christ ! I am  Christ’s  ! and  let  the  name  suffice  you ; 

Aye,  for  me,  too,  He  greatly  hath  sufficed ; 

Lo,  with  no  winning  words  I would  entice  you ; 

Paul  has  no  honor  and  no  friend  but  Christ. 

“ Yes,  without  cheer  of  sister  or  of  daughter — 

Yes,  without  stay  of  father  or  of  son, 

Lone  on  the  land,  and  homeless  on  the  water, 

Pass  I in  patience  till  the  work  be  done. 

“Yet  not  in  solitude,  if  Christ  anear  me 

Waketh  Him  workers  for  the  great  employ; 

Oh,  not  in  solitude,  if  souls  that  hear  me 
Catch  from  my  joyance  the  surprise  of  joy. 

“ Hearts  I have  won  of  sister  or  of  brother, 

Quick  on  the  earth  or  hidden  in  the  sod  ; 

Lo,  every  heart  awaiteth  me,  another 

Friend  in  the  blameless  family  of  God.” 

2 2 Cor.  10:10:  tj  napovaia  tou  (rdparos  Kcil  6 A Ay  os  (Zov&cvrjpfvos, 

or,  as  Cod.  B.  reads,  which  has  the  same  meaning.  Comp.  ver. 

1,  where  he  speaks  of  his  “lowly”  personal  appearance  among  the  Corin- 
thians (kot&  npAtruTcov  raireivis).  He  was  little,  compared  with  Barnabas  (Acts 
14 : 12). 


§ 30.  PAUL  BEFORE  IIIS  CONVERSION. 


295 


souls  forbidding  in  body.  Socrates  was  the  homeliest,  and  yet 
the  wisest  of  Greeks.  Neander,  a converted  Jew,  like  Paul, 
was  short,  feeble,  and  strikingly  odd  in  his  whole  appearance, 
but  a rare  humility,  benignity,  and  heavenly  aspiration  beamed 
from  his  face  beneath  his  dark  and  bushy  eyebrows.  So  we 
may  well  imagine  that  the  expression  of  Paul’s  countenance  was 
highly  intellectual  and  spiritual,  and  that  he  looked  “ sometimes 
like  a man  and  sometimes  like  an  angel.”  1 

1 This  is  from  the  tradition  preserved  in  the  apocryphal  Acts  of  Theda. 
See  the  description  quoted  above,  p.  282.  Other  ancient  descriptions  of  Paul 
in  the  Philopatris  of  pseudo-Lucian  (of  the  second,  but  more  probably  of  the 
fourth  century),  Malala  of  Antioch  (sixth  century),  and  Nicephorus  (fifteenth 
century),  represent  Paul  as  little  in  stature,  bald,  with  a prominent  aquiline 
nose,  gray  hair  and  thick  beard,  bright  grayish  eyes,  somewhat  bent  and 
stooping,  yet  pleasant  and  graceful.  See  these  descriptions  in  Lewin’s  JSt. 
Paul , II.  412.  The  oldest  extant  portraiture  of  Paul,  probably  from  the 
close  of  the  first  or  beginning  of  the  second  century,  was  found  on  a large 
bronze  medallion  in  the  cemetery  of  Domitilla  (one  of  the  Flavian  family), 
and  is  preserved  in  the  Vatican  library.  It  presents  Paul  on  the  left  and 
Peter  on  the  right.  Both  are  far  from  handsome,  but  full  of  character  ; Paul 
is  the  homelier  of  the  two,  with  apparently  diseased  eyes,  open  mouth,  bald 
head  and  short  thick  beard,  but  thoughtful,  solemn,  and  dignified.  See  a cut 
in  Lewin,  II.  211.  Chrysostom  calls  Paul  the  three-cubit  man  (6  Tpiirrjxvs 
HvfycDiros,  Serm.  in  Pet . et  Paul.).  Luther  imagined  : 11  JSt.  Paulus  war  ein 
armes,  diirres  Mannlein , wie  Magister  Philippm”  (Melanchthon).  A poetic 
description  by  J.  H.  Newman  see  in  Farrar  I.  220,  and  in  Plumptre  on  Acts , 
Appendix,  with  another  (of  his  own).  Renan  {Les  Apotres,  pp.  169sqq.)  gives, 
partly  from  Paul’s  Epistles,  partly  from  apocryphal  sources,  the  following 
striking  picture  of  the  apostle  : His  behavior  was  winning,  his  manners  ex- 
cellent, his  letters  reveal  a man  of  genius  and  lofty  aspirations,  though  the 
style  is  incorrect.  Never  did  a correspondence  display  rarer  courtesies, 
tenderer  shades,  more  amiable  modesty  and  reserve.  Once  or  twice  we  are 
wounded  by  his  sarcasm  (Gal.  5 : 12  ; Phil.  3:2).  But  what  rapture  ! What 
fulness  of  charming  words  ! What  originality ! His  exterior  did  not  correspond 
to  the  greatness  of  his  soul.  He  was  ugly,  short,  stout,  plump,  of  small 
head,  bald,  pale,  his  face  covered  with  a thick  beard,  an  eagle  nose,  piercing 
eyes,  dark  eyebrows.  His  speech,  embarrassed,  faulty,  gave  a poor  idea  of 
his  eloquence.  With  rare  tact  he  turned  his  external  defects  to  advantage. 
The  Jewish  race  produces  types  of  the  highest  beauty  and  of  the  most  com- 
plete homeliness  ( des  types  de  la  plus  grande  heaute  et  de  la  plus  complete 
laideur) ; but  the  Jewish  homeliness  is  quite  unique.  The  strange  faces 
which  provoke  laughter  at  first  sight,  assume  when  intellectually  enlivened, 
a peculiar  expression  of  intense  brilliancy  and  majesty  {une  sorte  <T eclat  pro- 
fond  et  de  majeste ). 


296 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


He  was  afflicted  with  a mysterious,  painful,  recurrent,  and 
repulsive  physical  infirmity,  which  he  calls  a “thorn  in  the 
flesh,”  and  which  acted  as  a check  upon  spiritual  pride  and 
self -exultation  over  his  abundance  of  revelations.1  He  bore 
the  heavenly  treasure  in  an  earthly  vessel  and  his  strength 
was  made  perfect  in  weakness.2  But  all  the  more  must 
we  admire  the  moral  heroism  which  turned  weakness  itself  into 
an  element  of  strength,  and  despite  pain  and  trouble  and 
persecution  carried  the  gospel  salvation  triumphantly  from 
Damascus  to  Home. 


§ 31.  The  Conversion  of  Paul. 

E vtioKri<rev  6 &cos  . . . aTroKa\v\pat  rbv  vibv  avrov  iv  i/iol , \va  ci>ayyc\lfapat 
avrbu  iv  rots  i&vecriv. — Gal.  1 : 15,  16. 

The  conversion  of  Paul  marks  not  only  a turning-point  in  his 
personal  history,  but  also  an  important  epoch  in  the  history  of 
the  apostolic  church,  and  consequently  in  the  history  of  man- 
kind. It  was  the  most  fruitful  event  since  the  miracle  of  Pen- 
tecost, and  secured  the  universal  victory  of  Christianity. 

The  transformation  of  the  most  dangerous  persecutor  into  the 
most  successful  promoter  of  Christianity  is  nothing  less  than  a 
miracle  of  divine  grace.  It  rests  on  the  greater  miracle  of  the 

1 2 Cor.  12  : 7-9  ; Gal.  4 : 13-15.  Comp,  also  1 Thess.  2 : 18  ; 1 Cor.  2:3; 
2 Cor.  1 : 8,  9 ; 4 : 10.  Of  the  many  conjectures  only  three  : sick  headache, 
acute  ophthalmia,  epilepsy,  seem  to  answer  the  allusions  of  Paul  which  are 
dark  to  us  at  such  a distance  of  time,  while  they  were  clear  to  his  personal 
friends.  Tertullian  and  Jerome,  according  to  an  ancient  tradition,  favor 
headache  ; Lewin,  Farrar,  and  many  others,  sore  eyes,  dating  the  inflamma- 
tion from  the  dazzling  light  which  shone  around  him  at  Damascus  (Acts  9 : 3, 
17,  18 ; comp.  22  : 13  ; 23  : 3,  5 ; Gal.  4 . 15) ; Ewald  and  Lightfoot,  epilepsy, 
with  illustration  from  the  life  of  King  Alfred  (Mohammed  would  be  even 
more  to  the  point).  Other  conjectures  of  external,  or  spiritual  trials  (perse- 
cution, carnal  temptations,  bad  temper,  doubt,  despondency,  blasphemous 
suggestions  of  the  devil,  etc.)  are  ruled  out  by  A strict  exegesis  of  the  two 
chief  passages  in  2 Cor.  12  and  Gal.  4,  which  point  to  a physical  malady.  See 
an  Excursus  on  Paul’s  thorn  in  the  flesh,  in  my  Commentary  on  Gal.  4 : 13-15 
{Pop.  Com.  vol.  III.). 

a 2 Cor.  4:7;  12:  9,  10. 


§ 31.  TIIE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL. 


207 


resurrection  of  Christ.  Both  are  inseparably  connected ; with- 
out the  resurrection  the  conversion  would  have  been  impossible, 
and  on  the  other  hand  the  conversion  of  such  a man  and  with 
such  results  is  one  of  the  strongest  proofs  of  the  resurrection. 

The  bold  attack  of  Stephen — the  forerunner  of  Paul — upon 
the  hard,  stiff-necked  Judaism  which  had  crucified  the  Messiah, 
provoked  a determined  and  systematic  attempt  on  the  part  of 
the  Sanhedrin  to  crucify  Jesus  again  by  destroying  his  church. 
In  this  struggle  for  life  and  death  Saul  the  Pharisee,  the  bravest 
and  strongest  of  the  rising  rabbis,  was  the  willing  and  accepted 
leader. 

After  the  martyrdom  of  Stephen  and  the  dispersion  of  the 
congregation  of  Jerusalem,  he  proceeded  to  Damascus  in  pur- 
suit of  the  fugitive  disciples  of  Jesus,  as  a commissioner  of 
the  Sanhedrin,  a sort  of  inquisitor-general,  with  full  authority 
and  determination  to  stamp  out  the  Christian  rebellion,  and  to 
bring  all  the  apostates  he  could  find,  whether  they  were  men 
or  women,  in  chains  to  the  holy  city  to  be  condemned  by  the 
chief  priests. 

Damascus  is  one  of  the  oldest  cities  in  the  world,  known  in 
the  days  of  Abraham,  and  bursts  upon  the  traveller  like  a vision 
of  paradise  amidst  a burning  and  barren  wilderness  of  sand ; it 
is  watered  by  the  never-failing  rivers  Abana  and  Pharpar 
(which  Naaman  of  old  preferred  to  all  the  waters  of  Israel), 
and  embosomed  in  luxuriant  gardens  of  flowers  and  groves  of 
tropical  fruit  trees ; hence  glorified  by  Eastern  poets  as  “ the 
Eye  of  the  Desert.” 

But  a far  higher  vision  than  this  earthly  paradise  was  in  store 
for  Saul  as  he  approached  the  city.  A supernatural  light  from 
heaven,  brighter  than  the  Syrian  sun,  suddenly  flashed  around 
him  at  midday,  and  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  whom  he  persecuted  in 
his  humble  disciples,  appeared  to  him  in  his  glory  as  the  exalted 
Messiah,  asking  him  in  the  Hebrew  tongue : “ Shaul,  Sliaul, 
why  persecutest  thou  Me  ? ” 1 It  was  a question  both  of  rebuke 

1 Acts  9 : 4,  the  Hebrew  form  SaouX,  SaouA,  is  used  instead  of  the  usual 
Gieek  vers.  8,  11,  29,  24,  etc. 


298 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


and  of  love,  and  it  melted  liis  heart.  He  fell  prostrate  to  the 
ground.  He  saw  and  heard,  he  trembled  and  obeyed,  he  be- 
lieved and  rejoiced.  As  he  rose  from  the  earth  he  saw  no 
man.  Like  a helpless  child,  blinded  by  the  dazzling  light,  he 
was  led  to  Damascus,  and  after  three  days  of  blindness  and 
fasting  he  was  cured  and  baptized — not  by  Peter  or  James  or 
John,  but — by  one  of  the  humble  disciples  whom  he  had  come 
to  destroy.  The  haughty,  self-righteous,  intolerant,  raging 
Pharisee  was  changed  into  an  humble,  penitent,  grateful,  loving 
servant  of  Jesus.  He  threw  away  self-righteousness,  learning, 
influence,  power,  prospects,  and  cast  in  his  lot  with  a small, 
despised  sect  at  the  risk  of  his  life.  If  there  ever  was  an 
honest,  unselfish,  radical,  and  effective  change  of  conviction 
and  conduct,  it  was  that  of  Saul  of  Tarsus.  He  became,  by  a 
creative  act  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  a “new  creature  in  Christ 
Jesus.”  1 2 

We  have  three  full  accounts  of  this  event  in  the  Acts,  one 
from  Luke,  two  from  Paul  himself,  with  slight  variations  in 
detail,  which  only  confirm  the  essential  harmony.3  Paul  also 
alludes  to  it  five  or  six  times  in  his  Epistles.3  In  all  these  pas- 
sages he  represents  the  change  as  an  act  brought  about  by  a 
direct  intervention  of  Jesus,  who  revealed  himself  in  his  glory 
from  heaven,  and  struck  conviction  into  his  mind  like  lightning 
at  midnight.  He  compares  it  to  the  creative  act  of  God  when 

1 2 Cor.  5:17;  Gal.  6 : 15. 

2 Acts,  chapters  9,  22,  26.  These  accounts  are  by  no  means  mere  repeti- 
tions, but  modifications  and  adaptations  of  the  same  story  to  the  audience 
under  apologetic  conditions,  and  bring  out  each  some  interesting  feature 
called  forth  by  the  occasion.  This  has  been  well  shown  by  Dean  Howson  in 
Excursus  C on  Acts,  ch.  26,  in  his  and  Canon  Spence’s  Commentary  on  Acts. 
The  discrepancies  of  the  accounts  are  easily  reconciled.  They  refer  chiefly 
to  the  effect  upon  the  companions  of  Paul  who  saw  the  light,  but  not  the 
person  of  Christ,  and  heard  a voice,  but  could  not  understand  the  words. 
The  vision  was  not  for  them  any  more  than  the  appearance  of  the  risen  Lord 
was  for  the  soldiers  who  watched  the  grave.  They  were  probably  members 
of  the  Levitical  temple  guard,  who  were  to  bind  and  drag  the  Christian  pris* 
oners  to  Jerusalem. 

3 Gal.  1 : 15,  16 ; 1 Cor.  15  : 8,  9 ; 9:1;  2 Cor.  4:6;  Phil.  3 : 6 ; 1 Tim. 
1 : 12-14. 


§ 31.  TIIE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL. 


299 


He  commanded  the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness.1  lie  lays 
irreat  stress  on  the  fact  that  he  was  converted  and  called  to  the 
apostolate  directly  by  Christ,  without  any  human  agency ; that 
he  learned  his  gospel  of  free  and  universal  grace  by  revelation, 
and  not  from  the  older  apostles,  whom  he  did  not  even  see  till 
three  years  after  his  call. 2 

The  conversion,  indeed,  was  not  a moral  compulsion,  but  in- 
cluded the  responsibility  of  assent  or  dissent.  God  converts 
nobody  by  force  or  by  magic.  He  made  man  free,  and  acts 
upon  him  as  a moral  being.  Paul  might  have  “ disobeyed  the 
heavenly  vision.” 3 He  might  have  “ kicked  against  the  goads,” 
though  it  was  “ hard  ” (not  impossible)  to  do  so.4 5  These  words 
imply  some  psychological  preparation,  some  doubt  and  misgiv- 
ing as  to  his  course,  some  moral  conflict  between  the  flesh  and 
the  spirit,  which  he  himself  described  twenty  years  afterwards 
from  personal  experience,  and  which  issues  in  the  cry  of  de- 
spair: “O  wretched  man  that  I am!  Who  shall  deliver  me 
from  the  body  of  this  death  ? ” 6 On  his  journey  from  J erusalem 
to  Damascus,  which  takes  a full  week  on  foot  or  horseback — the 
distance  being  about  140  miles — as  he  was  passing,  in  the  soli- 
tude of  his  own  thoughts,  through  Samaria,  Galilee,  and  across 
Mount  Hermon,  he  had  ample  time  for  reflection,  and  we  may 


1 2 Cor.  4 : 6. 

2 Gal.  1 : 1,  11,  12,  15-18. 

3 This  is  implied  in  his  words  to  King-  Agrippa,  Acts  26  : 19. 

1 Acts  26  : 14.  Christ  said  to  him  : (TnKypov  <roi  irpbs  Kevrpa  \aKri£civ.  This  is 
a proverbial  expression  used  by  Greek  writers  of  refractory  oxen  in  the  plough 
when  urged  by  a sharp-pointed  instrument  of  the  driver.  The  ox  may  and 
often  does  resist,  but  by  doing  so  he  only  increases  his  pain.  Resistance  is 
possible,  but  worse  than  useless. 

5 Rom.  7 : 7-25.  This  remarkable  section  describes  the  psychological  prog- 
ress of  the  human  heart  to  Christ  from  the  heathen  state  of  carnal  security, 
when  sin  is  dead  because  unknown,  through  the  Jewish  state  of  legal  conflict, 
when  sin,  roused  by  the  stimulus  of  the  divine  command,  springs  into  life, 
and  the  higher  and  nobler  nature  of  man  strives  in  vain  to  overcome  this  fear- 
ful monster,  until  at  last  the  free  grace  of  God  in  Christ  gains  the  victory. 

Some  of  the  profoundest  divines — Augustin,  Luther,  Calvin — transfer  this 
conflict  into  the  regenerate  state  ; but  this  is  described  in  the  eighth  chapter 
which  ends  in  an  exulting  song  of  triumph. 


300 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


well  imagine  how  the  shining  face  of  the  martyr  Stephen,  as 
he  stood  like  a holy  angel  before  the  Sanhedrin,  and  as  in  the 
last  moment  he  prayed  for  his  murderers,  was  haunting  him 
like  a ghost  and  warning  him  to  stop  his  mad  career. 

Yet  we  must  not  overrate  this  preparation  or  anticipate  his 
riper  experience  in  the  three  days  that  intervened  between  his 
conversion  and  his  baptism,  and  during  the  three  years  of  quiet 
meditation  in  Arabia.  He  was  no  doubt  longing  for  truth  and 
for  righteousness,  but  there  was  a thick  veil  over  his  mental 
eye  which  could  only  be  taken  away  by  a hand  from  without ; 
access  to  his  heart  was  barred  by  an  iron  door  of  prejudice  which 
had  to  be  broken  in  by  Jesus  himself.  On  his  way  to  Damascus 
he  was  “ yet  breathing  threatening  and  slaughter  against  the  dis- 
ciples of  the  Lord,”  and  thinking  he  was  doing  “ God  service ; ” 
he  was,  to  use  his  own  language,  “ beyond  measure  ” persecuting 
the  church  of  God  and  endeavoring  to  destroy  it,  “being  more 
exceedingly  zealous  for  the  traditions  of  his  fathers  ” than  many 
of  his  age,  when  “ it  pleased  God  to  reveal  his  Son  in  him.” 
Moreover  it  is  only  in  the  light  of  faith  that  we  see  the  mid- 
night darkness  of  our  sin,  and  it  is  only  beneath  the  cross  of 
Christ  that  we  feel  the  whole  crushing  weight  of  guilt  and  the 
unfathomable  depth  of  God’s  redeeming  love.  No  amount  of 
subjective  thought  and  reflection  could  have  brought  about  that 
radical  change  in  so  short  a time.  It  was  the  objective  appear- 
ance of  Jesus  that  effected  it. 

This  appearance  implied  the  resurrection  and  the  ascension, 
and  this  was  the  irresistible  evidence  of  His  Messiahship,  God’s 
own  seal  of  approval  upon  the  work  of  Jesus.  And  the  resur- 
rection again  shed  a new  light  upon  His  death  on  the  cross, 
disclosing  it  as  an  atoning  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  world,  as 
the  means  of  procuring  pardon  and  peace  consistent  with  the 
claims  of  divine  justice.  What  a revelation ! That  same  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  whom  he  hated  and  persecuted  as  a false  prophet 
justly  crucified  between  two  robbers,  stood  before  Saul  as  the 
risen,  ascended,  and  glorified  Messiah ! And  instead  of  crush- 
ing the  persecutor  as  he  deserved,  He  pardoned  him  and  called 


§ 31.  THE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL. 


301 


him  to  be  His  witness  before  Jews  and  Gentiles ! This  rev- 
elation was  enough  for  an  orthodox  Jew  waiting  for  the  hope 
of  Israel  to  make  him  a Christian,  and  enough  for  a Jew  of 
such  force  of  character  to  make  him  an  earnest  and  determined 
Christian.  The  logic  of  his  intellect  and  the  energy  of  his  will 
required  that  he  should  love  and  promote  the  new  faith  with 
the  same  enthusiasm  with  which  he  had  hated  and  persecuted 
it ; for  hatred  is  but  inverted  love,  and  the  intensity  of  love  and 
hatred  depends  on  the  strength  of  affection  and  the  ardor  of 
temper. 

With  all  the  suddenness  and  radicalness  of  the  transformation 
there  is  nevertheless  a bond  of  unity  between  Saul  the  Pharisee 
and  Paul  the  Christian.  It  was  the  same  person  with  the  same 
end  in  view,  but  in  opposite  directions.  We  must  remember 
that  he  wras  not  a worldly,  indifferent,  cold-blooded  man,  but  an 
intensely  religious  man.  While  persecuting  the  church,  he  was 
“blameless”  as  touching  the  righteousness  of  the  law.1  He  re- 
sembled the  rich  youth  who  had  observed  the  commandments, 
yet  lacked  the  one  thing  needful,  and  of  whom  Mark  says  that 
Jesus  “loved  him.”  2 He  was  not  converted  from  infidelity  to 
faith,  but  from  a lower  faith  to  a purer  faith,  from  the  religion 
of  Moses  to  the  religion  of  Christ,  from  the  theology  of  the  law 
to  the  theology  of  the  gospel.  How  shall  a sinner  be  justified 
before  the  tribunal  of  a holy  God  ? That  was  with  him  the 
question  of  questions  before  as  well  as  after  his  conversion  ; not  a 
scholastic  question  merely,  but  even  far  more  a moral  and  re- 
ligious question.  For  righteousness,  to  the  Hebrew  mind,  is 
conformity  to  the  will  of  God  as  expressed  in  his  revealed  law, 
and  implies  life  eternal  as  its  reward.  The  honest  and  earnest 
pursuit  of  righteousness  is  the  connecting  link  between  the  two 
periods  of  Paul’s  life.  First  he  labored  to  secure  it  by  works  of 
the  lawr,  then  by  obedience  of  faith.  What  he  had  sought  in 
vain  by  his  fanatical  zeal  for  the  traditions  of  Judaism,  he 
found  gratuitously  and  at  once  by  trust  in  the  cross  of  Christ : 

1 Phil  3 : 6,  Karh  8 iKaiotrvirrjv  rijy  iv  viji y yev6fi€VOS  &/ie/x7rros, 

* Mark  10  : 21. 


302 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


pardon  and  peace  with  God.  By  the  discipline  of  the  Mosaic 
law  as  a tutor  he  was  led  beyond  its  restraints  and  prepared  for 
manhood  and  freedom.  Through  the  law  he  died  to  the  law 
that  he  might  live  unto  God.  His  old  self,  with  its  lusts,  was 
crucified  with  Christ,  so  that  henceforth  he  lived  no  longer 
himself,  but  Christ  lived  in  him.1 2  He  was  mystically  identified 
with  his  Saviour  and  had  no  separate  existence  from  him.  The 
whole  of  Christianity,  the  whole  of  life,  was  summed  up  to  him 
in  the  one  word : Christ.  He  determined  to  know  nothing  save 
Jesus  Christ  and  Him  crucified  for  our  sins,  and  risen  again  for 
our  justification.3 * * 

His  experience  of  justification  by  faith,  his  free  pardon  and 
acceptance  by  Christ  were  to  him  the  strongest  stimulus  to  grati- 
tude and  consecration.  His  great  sin  of  persecution,  like  Peter’s 
denial,  was  overruled  for  his  own  good : the  remembrance  of  it 
kept  him  humble,  guarded  him  against  temptation,  and  intensi- 
fied his  zeal  and  devotion.  “ I am  the  least  of  the  apostles,”  he 
said  in  unfeigned  humility,  “that  am  not  meet  to  be  called 
an  apostle,  because  I persecuted  the  church  of  God.  But  by 
the  grace  of  God  I am  what  I am ; and  his  grace  which  was  be- 
stowed upon  me  was  not  in  vain ; but  I labored  more  abun- 
dantly than  they  all : yet  not  I,  but  the  grace  of  God  which  was 
with  me.” 8 This  confession  contains,  in  epitome,  the  whole 
meaning  of  his  life  and  work. 

The  idea  of  justification  by  the  free  grace  of  God  in  Christ 
through  a living  faith  which  makes  Christ  and  his  merits  our 
own  and  leads  to  consecration  and  holiness,  is  the  central  idea 
of  Paul’s  Epistles.  His  whole  theology,  doctrinal,  ethical,  and 
practical,  lies,  like  a germ,  in  his  conversion ; but  it  was  actually 
developed  by  a sharp  conflict  with  Judaizing  teachers  who  con- 

1 In  his  address  to  Peter  at  Antioch,  Gal.  2 : 11-21,  he  gives  an  account  of 
his  experience  and  his  gospel,  as  contrasted  with  the  gospel  of  the  Judaizers. 
Comp.  Gal.  3 : 24;  5 : 24 ; 6 : 14;  Rom.  7 : 6-13  ; Col.  2 : 20. 

2 1 Cor.  2:2;  Gal.  6 : 14 ; Rom.  4 : 24,  25. 

3 1 Cor.  15  :9,  10 ; comp.  Eph.  3:8:  “Unto  me  who  am  less  than  the  least 

of  all  saints,  was  this  grace  given;  ” 1 Tim.  1 : 15,  16  : “to  save  sinners  of 

whom  I am  chief,”  etc. 


§ 31.  THE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL. 


303 


tinued  to  trust  in  the  law  for  righteousness  and  salvation,  and 
thus  virtually  frustrated  the  grace  of  God  and  made  Christ’s 
death  unnecessary  and  fruitless. 

Although  Paul  broke  radically  with  Judaism  and  opposed  the 
Pharisaical  notion  of  legal  righteousness  at  every  step  and  with 
all  his  might,  he  was  far  from  opposing  the  Old  Testament  or 
the  Jewish  people.  Herein  he  shows  his  great  wisdom  and 
moderation,  and  his  infinite  superiority  over  Marcion  and  other 
ultra-  and  pseudo-Pauline  reformers.  He  now  expounded  the 
Scriptures  as  a direct  preparation  for  the  gospel,  the  law  as  a 
schoolmaster  leading  to  Christ,  Abraham  as  the  father  of  the 
faithful.  And  as  to  his  countrymen  after  the  flesh,  he  loved 
them  more  than  ever  before.  Filled  with  the  amazing  love  of 
Christ  who  had  pardoned  him,  “ the  chief  of  sinners,”  he  was 
ready  for  the  greatest  possible  sacrifice  if  thereby  he  might  save 
them.  His  startling  language  in  the  ninth  chapter  of  the  Ro- 
mans is  not  rhetorical  exaggeration,  but  the  genuine  expression 
of  that  heroic  self-denial  and  devotion  which  animated  Moses, 
and  which  culminated  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  eternal  Son  of  God 
on  the  cross  of  Calvary.1 

Paul’s  conversion  was  at  the  same  time  his  call  to  the  apostle* 
ship,  not  indeed  to  a place  among  the  Twelve  (for  the  vacancy 
of  Judas  was  filled),  but  to  the  independent  apostleship  of  the 
Gentiles.2  Then  followed  an  uninterrupted  activity  of  more 
than  a quarter  of  a century,  which  for  interest  and  for  perma- 
nent and  ever-growing  usefulness  has  no  parallel  in  the  annals 
of  history,  and  affords  an  unanswerable  proof  of  the  sincerity  of 
his  conversion  and  the  truth  of  Christianity.3 

1 Rom.  9:2,  3 ; comp.  Ex.  32  : 31,  32. 

2 Paul  never  numbers  himself  with  the  Twelve.  He  distinguishes  himself 
from  the  apostles  of  the  circumcision,  as  the  apostle  of  the  uncircumcision, 
but  of  equal  authority  with  them.  Gal.  2 : 7-9.  We  have  no  intimation  that 
the  election  of  Matthias  (Acts  1 : 26)  was  a mistake  of  the  hasty  Peter;  it 
was  ratified  by  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  immediately  following. 

3 On  the  testimony  of  Paul  to  Christianity  see  above  § 22,  p.  213.  I will 
add  some  good  remarks  of  Farrar,  I.  202:  “It  is  impossible,”  he  says,  “to 
exaggerate  the  importance  of  St.  Paul’s  conversion  as  one  of  the  evidences  of 
Christianity.  ....  To  what  does  he  testify  respecting  Jesus  ? To  almost 


304 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Analogous  Conversions. 

God  deals  with  men  according  to  tlieir  peculiar  character  and 
condition.  As  in  Elijah’s  vision  on  Mount  Horeb,  God  appears 
now  in  the  mighty  rushing  wind  that  uproots  the  trees,  now  in 
the  earthquake  that  rends  the  rocks,  now  in  the  consuming  fire, 
now  in  the  still  small  voice.  Some  are  suddenly  converted,  and 
can  remember  the  place  and  hour ; others  are  gradually  and  im- 
perceptibly changed  in  spirit  and  conduct ; still  others  grow  up 
unconsciously  in  the  Christian  faith  from  the  mother’s  knee  and 
the  baptismal  font.  The  stronger  the  will  the  more  force  it  re- 
quires to  overcome  the  resistance,  and  the  more  thorough  and 
lasting  is  the  change.  Of  all  sudden  and  radical  conversions 
that  of  Saul  was  the  most  sudden  and  the  most  radical.  In 
several  respects  it  stands  quite  alone,  as  the  man  himself  and  his 
work.  Yet  there  are  faint  analogies  in  history.  The  divines 
who  most  sympathized  with  his  spirit  and  system  of  doctrine, 
passed  through  a similar  experience,  and  were  much  aided  by 
his  example  and  writings.  Among  these  Augustin,  Calvin,  and 
Luther  are  the  most  conspicuous. 

St.  Augustin,  the  son  of  a pious  mother  and  a heathen  father, 
was  led  astray  into  error  and  vice  and  wandered  for  years 
through  the  labyrinth  of  heresy  and  scepticism,  but  his  heart 
was  restless  and  homesick  after  God.  At  last,  when  he  attained 
to  the  thirty-third  year  of  his  life  (Sept.,  386),  the  fermentation 

every  single  primary  important  fact  respecting  his  incarnation,  life,  suffer- 
ings, betrayal,  last  supper,  trial,  crucifixion,  resurrection,  ascension,  and 
heavenly  exaltation.  . . The  events  on  which  the  apostle  relied  in  proof  of 
Christ’s  divinity,  had  taken  place  in  the  full  blaze  of  contemporary  knowledge. 
He  had  not  to  deal  with  uncertainties  of  criticism  or  assaults  on  authenticity. 
He  could  question,  not  ancient  documents,  but  living  men  ; he  could  analyze, 
not  fragmentary  records,  but  existing  evidence.  He  had  thousands  of  means 
close  at  hand  whereby  to  test  the  reality  or  unreality  of  the  Resurrection  in 
which,  up  to  this  time,  he  had  so  passionatelv  and  contemptuously  disbelieved. 
In  accepting  this  half-crushed  and  wholly  execrated  faith  he  had  everything 
in  the  world  to  lose — he  had  nothing  conceivable  to  gain  ; and  yet,  in  spite  of 
all — overwhelmed  by  a conviction  he  felt  to  be  irresistible — Saul,  the  Phari- 
see, became  a witness  of  the  resurrection,  a preacher  of  the  cross.” 


§ 31.  TIIE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL. 


305 


of  his  soul  culminated  in  a garden  near  Milan,  far  away  from 
his  African  home,  when  the  Spirit  of  God,  through  the  com- 
bined agencies  of  the  unceasing  prayers  of  Monica,  the  sermons 
of  Ambrose,  the  example  of  St.  Anthony,  the  study  of  Cicero 
and  Plato,  of  Isaiah  and  Paul,  brought  about  a change  not  indeed 
as  wonderful — for  no  visible  appearance  of  Christ  was  vouch- 
safed to  him — but  as  sincere  and  lasting  as  that  of  the  apostle. 
As  he  was  lying  in  the  dust  of  repentance  and  wrestling  with 
God  in  prayer  for  deliverance,  he  suddenly  heard  a sweet  voice 
as  from  heaven,  calling  out  again  and  again : “ Take  and  read, 
take  and  read ! ” He  opened  the  holy  book  and  read  the  exhor- 
tation of  Paul : “ Put  ye  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  make 
not  provision  for  the  flesh,  to  fulfil  the  lusts  thereof .”  It  was  a 
voice  of  God ; he  obeyed  it,  he  completely  changed  his  course 
of  life,  and  became  the  greatest  and  most  useful  teacher  of  his 
age. 

Of  Calvin’s  conversion  we  know  very  little,  but  he  himself 
characterizes  it  as  a sudden  change  ( subita  conversio)  from  papal 
superstition  to  the  evangelical  faith.  In  this  respect  it  resem- 
bles that  of  Paul  rather  than  Augustin.  He  was  no  sceptic,  no 
heretic,  no  immoral  man,  but  as  far  as  we  know,  a pious  Roman- 
ist until  the  brighter  life  of  the  Reformation  burst  on  his  mind 
from  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  showed  him  a more  excellent 
way.  “ Only  one  haven  of  salvation  is  left  for  our  souls,”  he 
says,  “ and  that  is  the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ.  We  are  saved 
by  grace — not  by  our  merits,  not  by  our  works.”  He  consulted 
not  with  flesh  and  blood,  and  burned  the  bridge  after  him.  He 
renounced  all  prospects  of  a brilliant  career,  and  exposed  himself 
to  the  danger  of  persecution  and  death.  He  exhorted  and 
strengthened  the  timid  Protestants  of  France,  usually  closing 
with  the  words  of  Paul : “If  God  be  for  us,  who  can  be  against 
us  ? ” He  prepared  in  Paris  a flaming  address  on  reform,  which 
was  ordered  to  be  burned ; he  escaped  from  persecution  in  a 
basket  from  a window,  like  Paul  at  Damascus,  and  wandered 
for  two  years  as  a fugitive  evangelist  from  place  to  place  until 

he  found  his  sphere  of  labor  in  Geneva.  With  his  conversion 
20 


306 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


was  born  his  Pauline  theology,  which  sprang  from  his  brain 
like  Minerva  from  the  head  of  Jupiter.  Paul  never  had  a more 
logical  and  theological  commentator  than  John  Calvin.1 

Put  the  most  Paul-like  man  in  history  is  the  leader  of  the 
German  Reformation,  who  combined  in  almost  equal  proportion 
depth  of  mind,  strength  of  will,  tenderness  of  heart,  and  a fiery 
vehemence  of  temper,  and  was  the  most  powerful  herald  of 
evangelical  freedom ; though  inferior  to  Augustin  and  Calvin 
(not  to  say  Paul)  in  self-discipline,  consistency,  and  symmetry 
of  character.3  Luther’s  commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians, though  not  a grammatical  or  logical  exposition,  is  a fresh 
reproduction  and  republication  of  the  Epistle  against  the  self- 
righteousness  and  bondage  of  the  papacy.  Luther’s  first  con- 
version took  place  in  his  twenty -first  year  (1505),  when,  as 
a student  of  law  at  Erfurt,  on  his  return  from  a visit  to  his 
parents,  he  was  so  frightened  by  a fearful  thunder-storm  and 
flashes  of  lightning  that  he  exclaimed : “ Help,  dear  St.  Anna, 
I will  become  a monk!”  But  that  conversion,  although  it 
has  often  been  compared  with  that  of  the  apostle,  had  nothing 
to  do  with  his  Paulinism  and  Protestantism;  it  made  him  a 
pious  Catholic,  it  induced  him  to  flee  from  the  world  to  the 
retreat  of  a convent  for  the  salvation  of  his  soul.  And  he 
became  one  of  the  most  humble,  obedient,  and  self-denying  of 
monks,  as  Paul  was  one  of  the  most  earnest  and  zealous  of 
Pharisees.  “ If  ever  a monk  got  to  heaven  by  monkery,”  says 
Luther,  “I  ought  to  have  gotten  there.”  But  the  more  he 
sought  righteousness  and  peace  by  ascetic  self-denial  and  penal 
exercises,  the  more  painfully  he  felt  the  weight  of  sin  and  the 

1 See  my  History  of  the  Creeds  of  Christendom, , I.  426  sqq. 

2 This  is  fully  recognized  by  Renan,  who,  however,  has  little  sympathy 
either  with  the  apostle  or  the  reformer,  and  fancies  that  the  theology  of  both 
is  antiquated.  “ That  historical  character,”  he  says,  “ which  upon  the  whole 
bears  most  analogy  to  St.  Paul,  is  Luther.  In  both  there  is  the  same  violence 
in  language,  the  same  passion,  the  same  energy,  the  same  noble  independence, 
the  same  frantic  attachment  to  a thesis  embraced  as  the  absolute  truth.  ” St. 
Paul , ch.  XXII.  at  the  close.  And  his  last  note  in  this  book  is  this  : “ The 
work  which  resembles  most  in  spirit  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  is  Luther’s 
J)e  Captivitate  Babylonica  Ecclesiee .” 


§ 31.  TIIE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL. 


307 


wrath  of  God,  although  unable  to  mention  to  his  confessor  any 
particular  transgression.  The  discipline  of  the  law  drove  him 
to  the  brink  of  despair,  when  by  the  kind  interposition  of  Stau* 
pitz  he  was  directed  away  from  himself  to  the  cross  of  Christ,  as 
the  only  source  of  pardon  and  peace,  and  found,  by  implicit 
faith  in  His  all-sufficient  merits,  that  righteousness  which  he 
had  vainly  sought  in  his  own  strength.1  This,  his  second  con- 
version, as  we  may  call  it,  which  occurred  several  years  later 
(1508),  and  gradually  rather  than  suddenly,  made  him  an  evan- 
gelical freeman  in  Christ  and  prepared  him  for  the  great  con- 
flict with  Homanism,  which  began  in  earnest  with  the  nailing 
of  the  ninety-nine  theses  against  the  traffic  in  indulgences  (1517). 
The  intervening  years  may  be  compared  to  Paul’s  sojourn  in 
Arabia  and  the  subordinate  labors  preceding  his  first  great  mis- 
sionary tour. 


False  Explanations. 

Various  attempts  have  been  made  by  ancient  heretics  and 
modern  rationalists  to  explain  Paul’s  conversion  in  a purely  nat- 
ural way,  but  they  have  utterly  failed,  and  by  their  failure  they 
indirectly  confirm  the  true  view  as  given  by  the  apostle  him- 
self and  as  held  in  all  ages  by  the  Christian  church.3 

1.  The  Theory  of  Fraud. — The  heretical  and  malignant  fac- 
tion of  the  Judaizers  was  disposed  to  attribute  Paul’s  conver- 
sion to  selfish  motives,  or  to  the  influence  of  evil  spirits. 

The  Ebionites  spread  the  lie  that  Paul  was  of  heathen  parents, 
fell  in  love  with  the  daughter  of  the  high  priest  in  Jerusalem, 
became  a proselyte  and  submitted  to  circumcision  in  order  to 
secure  her,  but  failing  in  his  purpose,  he  took  revenge  and 
attacked  the  circumcision,  the  sabbath,  and  the  whole  Mosaic 
law.9 

In  the  pseudo-Clementine  Homilies,  which  represent  a specu- 

1 For  particulars  of  his  inner  conflicts  during  his  Erfurt  period,  see  Kostlin’s 
Martin  Luther  (1875),  I.  40  sqq.  and  61  sqq. 

1 Comp,  the  section  on  the  Resurrection  of  Christ,  pp.  172  sqq. 

3 Reported  by  Epiphanius,  Ilcer.  XXX.  1C  (ed.  Oehler,  tom.  I.  268  sq.). 


308 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


lative  form  of  the  Judaizing  heresy,  Paul  h assailed  under  the 
disguise  of  Simon  Magus,  the  arch-heretic,  who  smuggled  anti- 
nomian  heathenism  into  the  church.  The  manifestation  of 
Christ  was  either  a manifestation  of  his  wrath,  or  a deliberate 
lie.1 

2.  The  Rationalistic  Theory  of  Thunder  and  Lightning. 
— It  attributes  the  conversion  to  physical  causes,  namely,  a vio- 
lent storm  and  the  delirium  of  a burning  Syrian  fever,  in  which 
Paul  superstitiously  mistook  the  thunder  for  the  voice  of  God 
and  the  lightning  for  a heavenly  vision.2  But  the  record  says 

1 In  the  Clem.  Horn.,  XVII.,  ch.  19  (p.  351,  ed.  Dressel),  Simon  Peter  says 
to  Simon  Magus  : “If,  then,  our  Jesus  appeared  to  you  in  a vision  (5  i bpapiaros 
oQ&e'is),  made  himself  known  to  you,  and  conversed  with  you,  it  is  as  one  who 
is  enraged  with  an  adversary  (bus  avruceipievw  opyifypievos).  And  this  is  the 
reason  why  it  was  through  visions  and  dreams  (Si  Spajudr uv  /cal  ivvirpiup),  or 
through  revelations  that  were  from  without  (/)  /cal  hi  SnroKaAuipeoop  Qu&ev 
oxktwv)  that  He  spoke  to  you.  But  can  any  one  be  rendered  fit  for  instruction 
through  apparitions?  (hi  oirraa-iap ) . . . And  how  are  we  to  believe  your 
word,  when  you  tell  us  that  He  appeared  to  you  ? And  how  did  He  appear 
to  you,  when  you  entertain  opinions  contrary  to  His  teaching  ? But  if  you  have 
seen  and  were  taught  by  Him,  and  became  His  apostle  for  a single  hour,  pro- 
claim His  utterances,  interpret  His  sayings,  love  His  apostles,  contend  not 
with  me  who  companied  with  Him.  For  you  stand  now  in  direct  opposition 
to  me,  who  am  a firm  rock,  the  foundation  of  the  church  (<tt epeap  irerpap, 
&epie\iop  iiac\ri<r'ias,  comp.  Matt.  16  : 18).  If  you  were  not  opposed  to  me,  you 
would  not  accuse  me,  and  revile  the  truth  proclaimed  by  me,  in  order  that  I 
may  not  be  believed  when  I state  what  I myself  have  heard  with  my  own 
ears  from  the  Lord,  as  if  I were  evidently  a person  that  was  condemned  and 
had  not  stood  the  test  [according  to  the  true  reading  restored  by  Lagarde, 
ahoKi/xov  ovtos , instead  of  ivhoKiuovvrosy  ‘in  good  repute’].  But  if  you  say 
that  I am  ‘condemned’  {el  Kareypeoapiepop  pie  A eyeis,  comp.  Gal.  2:  11),  you 
bring  an  accusation  against  God,  who  revealed  the  Christ  to  me,  and  you  in- 
veigh against  Him  who  pronounced  me  blessed  on  account  of  the  revelation 
(Matt.  16:17).  But  if  you  really  wish  to  be  a co-worker,  in  the  cause  of 
truth,  learn  first  of  all  from  us  what  we  have  learned  from  Him,  and,  becom- 
ing a disciple  of  the  truth,  become  a fellow-worker  with  me.” 

The  allusions  to  Paul’s  Christ- vision  and  his  collision  with  Peter  at  Antioch 
are  unmistakable,  and  form  the  chief  argument  for  Baur’s  identification  of 
Simon  Magus  with  Paul.  But  it  is  perhaps  only  an  incidental  sneer.  Simon 
represents  all  anti- Jewish  heresies,  as  Peter  represents  all  truths. 

8 This  theory  was  proposed  by  the  so-called  “ vulgar  ” or  deistic  rationalists 
(as  distinct  from  the  more  recent  speculative  or  pantheistic  rationalists),  and 
has  been  revived  and  rhetorically  embellished  by  Renan  in  Les  Apotres  (ch.  X., 
pp.  175  sqq.).  “Every  step  to  Damascus,”  says  the  distinguished  French 


§ 31.  THE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL. 


300 


nothing  about  thunderstorm  and  fever,  and  both  combined  could 
not  produce  such  an  effect  upon  any  sensible  man,  much  less 
upon  the  history  of  the  world.  Who  ever  heard  the  thunder 
speak  in  Hebrew  or  in  any  other  articulate  language  ? And  had 
not  Paul  and  Luke  eyes  and  ears  and  common  sense,  as  well  as 
we,  to  distinguish  an  ordinary  phenomenon  of  nature  from  a 
supernatural  vision  ? 

3.  The  Vision-Hypothesis  resolves  the  conversion  into  a nat- 
ural psychological  process  and  into  an  honest  self-delusion.  It 
is  the  favorite  theory  of  modern  rationalists,  who  scorn  all  other 
explanations,  and  profess  the  highest  respect  for  the  intellectual 
and  moral  purity  and  greatness  of  Paul.1  It  is  certainly  more 

Academicien,  “ excited  in  Paul  bitter  repentance  ; tbe  shameful  task  of  the 
hangman  was  intolerable  to  him  ; he  felt  as  if  he  was  kicking  against  the 
goads ; the  fatigue  of  travel  added  to  his  depression  ; a malignant  fever  sud- 
denly seized  him  ; the  blood  rushed  to  the  head  ; the  mind  was  filled  with  a 
picture  of  midnight  darkness  broken  by  lightning  flashes  ; it  is  probable  that 
one  of  those  sudden  storms  of  Mount  Hermon  broke  out  which  are  unequalled 
for  vehemence,  and  to  the  Jew  the  thunder  was  the  voice  of  God,  the  light- 
ning the  fire  of  God.  Certain  it  is  that  by  a fearful  stroke  the  persecutor 
was  thrown  on  the  ground  and  deprived  of  his  senses  ; in  his  feverish  delirium 
he  mistook  the  lightning  for  a heavenly  vision,  the  voice  of  thunder  for  a 
voice  from  heaven;  inflamed  eyes,  the  beginning  of  ophthalmia,  aided  the 
delusion.  Vehement  natures  suddenly  pass  from  one  extreme  to  another ; 
moments  decide  for  the  whole  life ; dogmatism  is  the  only  thing  which  re- 
mains. So  Paul  changed  the  object  of  his  fanaticism  ; by  his  boldness,  his 
energy,  his  determination  he  saved  Christianity,  which  otherwise  would  have 
died  like  Essenism,  without  leaving  a trace  of  its  memory.  He  is  the  founder 
of  independent  Protestantism.  He  represents  le  christianisme  conquerant  et 
voyageur.  Jesus  never  dreamed  of  such  disciples ; yet  it  is  they  who  will 
keep  his  work  alive  and  secure  it  eternity.”  In  this  work,  and  more  fully  in 
his  St.  Pauly  Renan  gives  a picture  of  the  great  apostle  which  is  as  strange  a 
mixture  of  truth  and  error,  and  nearly  as  incoherent  and  fanciful,  as  his 
romance  of  Jesus  in  the  Vie  de  Jesus. 

1 So  Strauss  ( Leben  JesUy  § 138,  in  connection  with  the  resurrection  of 
Christ),  Baur  (with  much  more  seriousness  and  force,  in  his  Pauly  P.  I.,  ch.  3) 
and  the  whole  Tubingen  School,  Holsten,  Hilgenfeld,  Lipsius.  Pfleiderer, 
Hausrath,  and  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  (III.  498  sqq  ).  Baur 
at  last  gave  up  the  theory  as  a failure  (1860,  see  below).  But  Holsten  re- 
vived and  defended  it  very  elaborately  and  ingeniously  in  his  essay  on  the 
Christusvision  des  Paulus , in  Hilgenf eld’s  “ Zeitschrift  ” for  1861.  W.  Bey- 
schlag  (of  Halle)  very  ably  refuted  it  in  an  article : Die  Bekehrung  des  Paulus 
mit  besondtrer  RiXeksicht  auf  die  Erkldrungsversuche  von  Baur  und  Holsten , 


310 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


rational  and  creditable  than  the  second  hypothesis,  because  it 
ascribes  the  mighty  change  not  to  outward  and  accidental  phe- 
nomena which  pass  away,  but  to  internal  causes.  It  assumes 
that  an  intellectual  and  moral  fermentation  was  going  on  for 
some  time  in  the  mind  of  Paul,  and  resulted  at  last,  by  logical 
necessity,  in  an  entire  change  of  conviction  and  conduct,  with- 
out any  supernatural  influence,  the  very  possibility  of  which  is 
denied  as  being  inconsistent  with  the  continuity  of  natural  de- 
velopment. The  miracle  in  this  case  was  simply  the  mythical 
and  symbolical  reflection  of  the  commanding  presence  of  Jesus 
in  the  thoughts  of  the  apostle. 

That  Paul  saw  a vision,  he  says  himself,  but  he  meant,  of 
course,  a real,  objective,  personal  appearance  of  Christ  from 
heaven,  which  was  visible  to  his  eyes  and  audible  to  his  ears, 
and  at  the  same  time  a revelation  to  his  mind  through  the  me- 
dium of  the  senses.1  The  inner  spiritual  manifestation 2 was 
more  important  than  the  external,  but  both  combined  produced 
conviction.  The  vision-theory  turns  the  appearance  of  Christ 

in  the  “ Studien  und  Kritiken”  for  1864,  pp.  197-264.  Then  Holsten  came 
out  with  an  enlarged  edition  of  his  essay  in  book  form,  Zum  Evang.  cles  Paulus 
und  des  Petrus , 1868,  with  a long  reply  to  Beyschlag.  Pfleiderer  repeated  the 
vision-theory  in  his  Hibbert  Lectures  (1885). 

Some  English  writers  have  also  written  on  Paul’s  conversion  in  opposition  to 
this  modern  vision- theory,  namely,  R.  Macpherson  : The  Resurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ  (against  Strauss),  Edinb.,  1867,  Lect.  XIII.,  pp.  316-360;  Geo. 
P.  Fisher  : Supernatural  Origin  of  Christianity,  N.  York,  new  ed.  1877,  pp. 
459-470,  comp,  his  essay  on  “ St.  Paul  ” in  Discussions  in  History  and  The- 
ology, N.  Y.  1880,  pp.  487-511 ; A.  B.  Bruce  (of  Glasgow) : Paul's  Conver- 
sion and  the  Pauline  Gospel , in  the  “ Presbyt.  Review  ” for  Oct.  1880  (against 
Pfleiderer,  whose  work  on  Paulinism  Bruce  calls  “ an  exegetical  justification 
and  a philosophical  dissipation  of  the  Reformed  interpretation  of  the  Pauline 
system  of  doctrine  ”). 

1 He  describes  it  as  an  ovpavios  birrao-la,  Acts  26  : 19,  and  says  that  he  saw 
Christ,  that  Christ  was  seen  by  him,  1 Cor.  9 : 1 ; 15  : 8.  So  the  vision  of  the 
women  at  the  tomb  of  the  risen  Lord  is  called  an  oi rraffia  twv  ayy* \av,  Luke 
24  : 23.  But  even  Peter,  who  was  less  critical  than  Paul,  well  knew  how  to 
distinguish  between  an  actual  occurrence  (an  a\r)^cos  y evipevov)  and  a merely 
subjective  vision  (a  opa.ua ),  Acts  12:9.  Objective  visions  are  divine  revela* 
tions  through  the  senses;  subjective  visions  are  hallucinations  and  deceptions. 

2 Gal.  1 : 16,  airoKa\vy\iai  rbv  vibv  avrov  4v  1/J.ol,  within  me,  in  my  inmost 
soul  and  consciousness. 


§ 31.  TIIE  CONVERSION’  OF  PAUL. 


311 


Into  a purely  subjective  imagination,  which  the  apostle  mistook 
for  an  objective  fact.1 

1 Baur  was  disposed  to  charge  this  confusion  upon  the  author  of  the  Acts 
and  to  claim  for  Paul  a more  correct  conception  of  the  Christophany,  as 
being  a purely  inner  event  or  u a spiritual  manifestation  of  Christ  to  his 
deeper  self-consciousness  ” (Gal.  1 : 16,  iv  ifiol) ; but  this  is  inconsistent  with 
Paul’s  own  language  in  1 Cor.  9:1;  15  : 8.  Holsten  admits  that,  without  a 
full  conviction  of  the  objective  reality  of  the  Christophany,  Paul  could  never 
have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  crucified  was  raised  to  new  life  by  the 
almighty  power  of  God.  He  states  the  case  from  his  standpoint  clearly  in 
these  words  (p.  65):  “ Der  glaube  des  Paulus  an  Jesus  als  den  Christus  war 
folge  dessen , doss  auch  ihm  Christus  erschienen  war  (1  Cor.  15  : 8).  Diese 
vision  war  f dr  das  bewusstsein  des  Paulas  das  schauen  einer  objectiv-wirklichen , 
himmlischen  gestalt , die  aus  ihrer  transcendenten  unsichtbarkeit  sich  ihm  zur 
erscheinung  gebracht  liabe.  Aus  der  wirklichkeit  dieser  geschauten  gestalt , in 
welcher  er  den  gekreuzigten  Jesus  erkannte,  folgerte  auch  er,  dass  dtr  kreuzes- 
tote  zu  neuem  leben  von  der  allmacht  Gottes  auferweekt  worden , aus  der  gewiss- 
heit  der  auferweekung  aber , dass  dieser  von  den  toten  auferweckte  der  sohn 
Gottes  und  der  Messias  sei.  Wie  also  an  der  wirklichkeit  der  auferweekung 
dem  Paulus  die  game  wahrheit  seines  evangdium  hdngt  (vgl.  1 Cor.  15,  12  f.), 
so  ist  es  die  vision  des  auferweekten , mit  wdclier  ihm  die  wahrheit  des  messias- 
glaubens  aufging,  und  der  umschwung  seines  bewusstseins  sich  voUendete. 

“ Diese  vision  war  fur  Paulus  der  eingriff  einer  fremden  transcendenten 
macht  in  sein  geistesleben.  Die  historische  kritik  aber  unter  der  herrschaft  des 
gesetzes  der  immanenten  entwicklung  des  menschlichen  geistes  aus  innerweltlichen 
causalitdten  muss  die  vision  als  einen  immanenten , psychologischen  akt  seines 
eigenen  geistes  zu  begreifen  suchen.  Ihr  liegt  damit  eine  ihrer  scliwiezigsten 
aufgaben  vor,  eine  so  schwierige,  dass  ein  meister  der  historischen  kritik,  der 
zugleich  so  tief  in  das  wesen  des  paulinischen  geistes  eingedrungen  ist,  als  Baur , 
noch  eben  erkldrt  hat,  dass  ‘ keine,  weder  psychologische , noch  dialektische  ana- 
lyse das  innere  geheimnis  des  aktes  erforschen  konne,  in  welchem  Gott  seinen 
sohn  dem  Paulus  enthullte Und  doch  darf  sich  die  kritik  von  dem  versuch , 
dies  geheimnis  zu  erforschen,  nicht  abschrecken  lassen.  Denn  diese  vision  ist  einer 
der  entscheidendsten  punkte  far  ein  geschichtliches  begreifen  des  urchristentums . 
In  ihrer  genesis  ist  der  keim  des  paulinischen  evangelium  g eg  eben.  So  lange  der 
schein  nicht  aufgehoben  ist , dass  die  empfangnis  dieses  keims  als  die  wirkung 
einer  transcendenten  kraft  erfolgt  sei , besteht  uber  dem  empfangenen  fort  und 
fort  der  schein  des  transcendenten.  Und  die  kritik  am  wenigsten  darf  sich 
damit  beruhigen , dass  eine  transcendenz,  eine  objectivitdt,  icie  sie  von  ihren 
gegnern  fur  diese  vision  gefordert  wird,  von  der  selbstgewissheit  des  modernen 
geistes  verworfen  sei.  Denn  diese  selbstgewissheit  kann  Hire  wahrheit  nur 
behaupten,  solange  und  soweit  ihre  kategorieen  als  das  gesetz  der  wirklichkeit 
nachgewiesen  sind.”  Dr.  Pfleiderer  moves  in  the  same  line  with  Holsten,  and 
eliminates  the  supernatural,  but  it  is  due  to  him  to  say  that  he  admits  the 
purely  hypothetical  character  of  this  speculative  theory,  and  lays  great  stress 
on  the  moral  as  well  as  the  logieal  and  dialectical  process  in  Paul’s  mind, 
“ Darum  war,"  he  says  ( Paulinismus , p.  16).  “ der  Prozess  der  Bekehrung 


312 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


It  is  incredible  that  a man  of  sound,  clear,  and  keen  mind  as 
that  of  Paul  undoubtedly  was,  should  have  made  such  a radical 
and  far-reaching  blunder  as  to  confound  subjective  reflections 
with  an  objective  appearance  of  Jesus  whom  he  persecuted,  and 
to  ascribe  solely  to  an  act  of  divine  mercy  what  he  must  have 
known  to  be  the  result  of  his  own  thoughts,  if  he  thought  at  all. 

The  advocates  of  this  theory  throw  the  appearances  of  the 
risen  Lord  to  the  older  disciples,  the  later  visions  of  Peter, 
Philip,  and  John  in  the  Apocalypse,  into  the  same  category  of 
subjective  illusions  in  the  high  tide  of  nervous  excitement  and 
religious  enthusiasm.  It  is  plausibly  maintained  that  Paul  was 
an  enthusiast,  fond  of  visions  and  revelations,1  and  that  he  jus- 
tifies a doubt  concerning  the  realness  of  the  resurrection  itself 
by  putting  all  the  appearances  of  the  risen  Christ  on  the  same 
level  with  his  own,  although  several  years  elapsed  between 
those  of  Jerusalem  and  Galilee,  and  that  on  the  way  to  Da 
mascus. 

But  this,  the  only  possible  argument  for  the  vision-hypothe- 
sis, is  entirely  untenable.  When  Paul  says:  “ Last  of  all,  as 
unto  an  untimely  offspring,  Christ  appeared  to  me  also,”  he 
draws  a clear  line  of  distinction  between  the  personal  appear- 
ances of  Christ  and  his  own  later  visions,  and  closes  the  former 
with  the  one  vouchsafed  to  him  at  his  conversion."  Once,  and 

nichts  weniger , als  tine  kalte  Denkoperation  ; es  war  vielmehr  der  tiefsittliche 
Oehoi'samsakt  tines  zarten  Gewissens  gegen  die  sick  unwiderstehlich  aufdrdn- 
gende  holier e Wahrheit  ( daher  Him  auch  der  Glaube  eine  vvaKoh  ist),  tin  Akt 
grossartiger  Selbstverleugnung , der  Hingabe  des  alten  Menschen  und  seiner 
ganzen  religiosen  Welt  in  den  Tod , umfortan  keinen  Ruhm,  ja  kein  Leben  mehr 
zu  haben , als' in  Christo , dem  G ekreuzigten.  Das  istja  der  Grundton , den  wir 
aus  alien  Brief en  des  Apostels  heraustonen  horen,  wo  immer  er  sein  personliches 
VerhcUtniss  zum  Kreuz  Christi  schildert ; esist  nie  bloss  tin  Verhdltniss  objec - 
tiver  Theorie,  sondem  immer  zugleich  und  wesentlich  das  der  subjectiven  Ver- 
bundenheit  des  inner sten  Gemuths  mit  dem  G ekreuzigten,  eine  mystische 
Gemeinschaft  mit  dem  Kreuzestod  und  mit  dem  Auferstehungsleben  Christi 

1 Comp.  2 Cor.  12:2;  Acts  18:9;  22  : 17.  Some  of  these  modern  critics 
suppose  that  he  was  epileptic,  like  Mohammed  and  Swedenborg,  and  therefore 
all  the  more  open  to  imaginary  visions. 

91  Cor.  15:8:  t<rxaT0V  ^ ir dvriov,  axnrepel  rip  fKrpcc^ari,  &<pfrr]  K&yol. 
Meyer  justly  remarks  in  loc. : &tx«t ov  schliesst  die  Rtihe  leibhaf  tiger  Erschei- 
nungen  ab , und  schtidet  damit  diese  von  spdteren  visiondren  oder  sonst  a/poka • 


§ 31.  TIIE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL. 


313 


once  only,  lie  claims  to  have  seen  the  Lord  in  visible  form  and 
to  have  heard  his  voice ; last,  indeed,  and  out  of  due  time,  yet 
as  truly  and  really  as  the  older  apostles.  The  only  difference  is 
that  they  saw  the  risen  Saviour  still  abiding  on  earth , while  he 
saw  the  ascended  Saviour  coming  down  from  heaven , as  we  may 
expect  him  to  appear  to  all  men  on  the  last  day.  It  is  the 
greatness  of  that  vision  which  leads  him  to  dwell  on  his  personal 
unworthiness  as  “ the  least  of  the  apostles  and  not  worthy  to  be 
called  an  apostle,  because  he  persecuted  the  church  of  God.” 
He  uses  the  realness  of  Christ’s  resurrection  as  the  basis  for  his 
wonderful  discussion  of  the  future  resurrection  of  believers,  which 
would  lose  all  its  force  if  Christ  had  not  actually  been  raised 
from  the  dead.1 

Moreover  his  conversion  coincided  with  his  call  to  the  apos- 
tleship.  If  the  former  was  a delusion,  the  latter  must  also  have 
been  a delusion.  He  emphasizes  his  direct  call  to  the  apostleship 
of  the  Gentiles  by  the  personal  appearance  of  Christ  without  any 
human  intervention,  in  opposition  to  his  Judaizing  adversaries 
who  tried  to  undermine  his  authority.2 

The  whole  assumption  of  a long  and  deep  inward  preparation, 
both  intellectual  and  moral,  for  a change,  is  without  any  evi- 
dence, and  cannot  set  aside  the  fact  that  Paul  was,  according  to 
his  repeated  confession,  at  that  time  violently  persecuting 
Christianity  in  its  followers.  His  conversion  can  be  far  less 
explained  from  antecedent  causes,  surrounding  circumstances, 
and  personal  motives  than  that  of  any  other  disciple.  While 

lyptischeti .”  Similarly  Uodet  {Coin,  sur  Vepitre  aux  Romains , 1879,  I.  17) : 
“ Paul  clot  V enumeration  des  apparitions  de  Jesus  ressuscite  aux  apotres  par 
celle  qui  lui  a ete  accordee  d lui-meme  ; il  lui  attribue  done  la  meme  realite  qu'd 
celles-ld,  el  il  la  distingue  ainsi  d'une  maniere  tranchee  de  toutes  les  visions  dont 
Ufut  plus  tard  honore  et  que  mentionnent  le  livre  des  Actes , et  les  epitres .” 

1 1 Cor  15  : 12  sqq.  Dean  Stanley  compares  this  discussion  to  the  Phgedo  of 
Plato  and  the  Tusculan  Disputations  of  Cicero,  but  it  is  far  more  profound 
and  assuring.  Heathen  philosophy  can  at  best  prove  only  the  possibility  and 
probability,  but  not  the  certainty,  of  a future  life.  Moreover  the  idea  of 
immortality  has  no  comfort,  but  terror  rather,  except  for  those  who  believe 
in  Christ,  who  is  “ the  Resurrection  and  the  Life.” 

2 Gal  1 : 16  ; 1 Cor.  9:1;  15:8;  Acts  22  : 10,  14. 


314 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


the  older  apostles  were  devoted  friends  of  Jesus,  Paul  was  liis 
enemy,  bent  at  the  very  time  of  the  great  change  on  an  errand 
of  cruel  persecution,  and  therefore  in  a state  of  mind  most  un- 
likely to  give  birth  to  a vision  so  fatal  to  his  present  object  and 
his  future  career.  IIow  could  a fanatical  persecutor  of  Chris- 
tianity, “ breathing  threatenings  and  slaughter  against  the  dis- 
ciples of  the  Lord,”  stultify  and  contradict  himself  by  an  imagi- 
native conceit  which  tended  to  the  building  up  of  that  very 
religion  which  he  was  laboring  to  destroy  ! 1 

But  supposing  (with  Henan)  that  his  mind  was  temporarily 
upset  in  the  delirium  of  feverish  excitement,  he  certainly  soon 
recovered  health  and  reason,  and  had  every  opportunity  to  cor- 
rect his  error ; he  was  intimate  with  the  murderers  of  Jesus, 
who  could  have  produced  tangible  evidence  against  the  resurrec- 
tion if  it  had  never  occurred ; and  after  a long  pause  of  quiet 
reflection  he  went  to  Jerusalem,  spent  a fortnight  with  Peter, 
and  could  learn  from  him  and  from  James,  the  brother  of 
Christ,  their  experience,  and  compare  it  with  his  own.  Every- 
thing in  this  case  is  against  the  mythical  and  legendary  theory 
which  requires  a change  of  environment  and  the  lapse  of  years 
for  the  formation  of  poetic  fancies  and  fictions. 

Finally,  the  whole  life-work  of  Paul,  from  his  conversion  at 
Damascus  to  his  martyrdom  in  Home,  is  the  best  possible  argu- 
ment against  this  hypothesis  and  for  the  realness  of  his  conver- 
sion, as  an  act  of  divine  grace.  “ By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know 
them.”  How  could  such  an  effective  change  proceed  from  an 
empty  dream  ? Can  an  illusion  change  the  current  of  history  ? 
By  joining  the  Christian  sect  Paul  sacrificed  everything,  at  last 
life  itself,  to  the  service  of  Christ.  He  never  wavered  in  his 
conviction  of  the  truth  as  revealed  to  him,  and  by  his  faith  in 
this  revelation  he  has  become  a benediction  to  all  ages. 

The  vision-hypothesis  denies  objective  miracles,  but  ascribes 
miracles  to  subjective  imaginations,  and  makes  a lie  more  effect 
ive  and  beneficial  than  the  truth. 


1 Acts  9:  2;  comp.  Gal.  1 : 13 ; 1 Cor.  15  : 9;  Phil.  3:6;  1 Tim.  1 : 13 


§ 31.  THE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL. 


315 


All  rationalistic  and  natural  interpretations  of  the  conversion 
of  Paul  turn  out  to  be  irrational  and  unnatural ; the  supernatural 
interpretation  of  Paul  himself,  after  all,  is  the  most  rational 
and  natural. 


Remarkable  Concessions. 

Dr.  Baub,  the  master-spirit  of  skeptical  criticism  and  the  founder  of  the 
“Tiibingen  School,”  felt  constrained,  shortly  before  his  death  (1860),  to 
abandon  the  vision-hypothesis  and  to  admit  that  “no  psychological  or 
dialectical  analysis  can  explore  the  inner  mystery  of  the  act  in  which  God 
revealed  his  Son  in  Paul  (keine,  weder  psychologische  noch  dialektische 
Analyse  kann  das  innere  Geheimniss  des  Actes  erforsclien , in  welchem  Gott 
seinen  Sohn  in  ihm  enthulte ).  In  the  same  connection  he  says  that  in 
“ the  sudden  transformation  of  Paul  from  the  most  violent  adversary  of 
Christianity  into  its  most  determined  herald”  he  could  see  “nothing 
short  of  a miracle  ( Wunder) ; ” and  adds  that  “ this  miracle  appears  all 
the  greater  when  we  remember  that  in  this  revulsion  of  his  conscious- 
ness he  broke  through  the  barriers  of  Judaism  and  rose  out  of  its  par- 
ticularism into  the  universalism  of  Christianity.” 1 2 This  frank  confession 
is  creditable  to  the  head  and  heart  of  the  late  Tubingen  critic,  but  is 
fatal  to  his  whole  anti-supernaturalistic  theory  of  history.  Si  falsus  in 
uno , falsus  in  omnibus.  If  we  admit  the  miracle  in  one  case,  the  door  is 
opened  for  all  other  miracles  which  rest  on  equally  strong  evidence. 

The  late  Dr.  Keim,  an  independent  pupil  of  Baur,  admits  at  least 
spiritual  manifestations  of  the  ascended  Christ  from  heaven , and  urges  in 
favor  of  the  objective  reality  of  the  Christophanies  as  reported  by  Paul, 
1 Cor.  15  :3  sqq.,  “the  whole  character  of  Paul,  his  sharp  understanding 
which  was  not  weakened  by  his  enthusiasm,  the  careful,  cautious, 
measured,  simple  form  of  his  statement,  above  all  the  favorable  total 
impression  of  his  narrative  and  the  mighty  echo  of  it  in  the  unanimous, 
uncontradicted  faith  of  primitive  Christendom.”  * 

Dr.  Scbenkel,  of  Heidelberg,  in  his  latest  stage  of  development,  says 
that  Paul,  with  full  justice,  put  his  Christophany  on  a par  with  the 
Christophanies  of  the  older  apostles ; that  all  these  Christophanies  are 
not  simply  the  result  of  psychological  processes,  but  “remain  in  many 
respects  psychologically  inconceivable,”  and  point  back  to  the  historic 
background  of  the  person  of  Jesus ; that  Paul  was  not  an  ordinary 
visionary,  but  carefully  distinguished  the  Christophany  at  Damascus 
from  his  later  visions ; that  he  retained  the  full  possession  of  his  rational 
mind  even  in  the  moments  of  the  highest  exaltation ; that  his  conversion 

1 See  Baur’s  Church  History  of  the  First  Three  Centuries , Tubingen,  2d  ed. 
p.  45  ; English  translation  by  Allan  Menzies,  London,  1878,  vol.  I.  47. 

2 Geschichte  Jesu  von  Hazara.  Zurich,  1872,  vol.  III.  532. 


316 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


was  not  the  sudden  effect  of  nervous  excitement,  but  brought  about  by 
the  influence  of  the  divine  Providence  which  quietly  prepared  his  soul 
for  the  reception  of  Christ ; and  that  the  appearance  of  Christ  vouch- 
safed to  him  was  “ no  dream,  but  reality.”  1 

Professor  Reuss,  of  Strasburg,  likewise  an  independent  critic  of  the 
liberal  school,  comes  to  the  same  conclusion  as  Baur,  that  the  conver- 
sion of  Paul,  if  not  an  absolute  miracle,  is  at  least  an  unsolved  psycho- 
logical problem.  He  says  : “ La  conversion  de  Paul , apres  tout  ce  qui  en 
a ete  dit  de  notre  temps , reste  toujour s,  si  ce  ri est  un  miracle  absolu,  dans  le 
sens  traditionnel  de  ce  mot  (c'est-a-dire  un  evenement  qui  arrete  ou  change 
violemment  le  cours  naturel  des  choses,  un  effet  sans  autre  cause  que  Vinter - 
vention  arbitraire  et  immediate  de  Dieu),  du  moins  un  probleine  psycholo- 
gique  aujourd’hui  insoluble.  L' explication  dite  naturelle,  qu'elle  fasse  inter - 
venir  un  orage  ou  qvtelle  se  retranche  dans  le  domaine  des  hallucinations  . . . 
ne  nous  donne  pas  la  clef  de  cette  crise  elle-meme,  qui  a decide  la  meta- 
morphose dupharisien  en  chretien”  2 

Canon  Farrar  says  (1. 195) : “ One  fact  remains  upon  any  hypothesis — 
and  that  is,  that  the  conversion  of  St.  Paul  was  in  the  highest  sense  of 
the  word  a miracle,  and  one  of  which  the  spiritual  consequences  have 
affected  every  subsequent  age  of  the  history  of  mankind.” 


§ 32.  The  Work  of  Paul . 


“ He  who  can  part  from  country  and  from  kin, 

And  scorn  delights,  and  tread  the  thorny  way, 

A heavenly  crown,  through  toil  and  pain,  to  win— 

He  who  reviled  can  tender  love  repay. 

And  buffeted,  for  bitter  foes  can  pray — 

He  who,  upspringing  at  his  Captain’s  call, 

Fights  the  good  fight,  and  when  at  last  the  day 
Of  fiery  trial  comes,  can  nobly  fall — 

Such  were  a saint — or  more — and  such  the  holy  Paul  I ” 

—Anon. 

The  conversion  of  Paul  was  a great  intellectual  and  moral  rev- 
olution, yet  without  destroying  his  identity.  His  noble  gifts 
and  attainments  remained,  hut  were  purged  of  selfish  motives, 
inspired  by  a new  principle,  and  consecrated  to  a divine  end. 
The  love  of  Christ  who  saved  him,  was  now  his  all-absorbing 
passion,  and  no  sacrifice  was  too  great  to  manifest  his  gratitude 

1 Das  Christusbild  der  Apostel.  Leipzig,  1879,  pp.  57  sq. 

2 Les  fipitres  pauliniennes.  Paris,  1878,  vol.  L p.  11. 


§ 32.  THE  WORK  OF  PAUL. 


317 


to  Him.  The  architect  of  ruin  became  an  architect  of  the  tem- 
ple of  God.  The  same  vigor,  depth  and  acuteness  of  mind,  but 
illuminated  by  the  Holy  Spirit ; the  same  strong  temper  and 
burning  zeal,  but  cleansed,  subdued  and  controlled  by  wisdom 
and  moderation ; the  same  energy  and  boldness,  but  coupled 
with  gentleness  and  meekness ; and,  added  to  all  this,  as  crown- 
ing gifts  of  grace,  a love  and  humility,  a tenderness  and  deli- 
cacy of  feeling  such  as  are  rarely,  if  ever,  found  in  a character 
so  proud,  manly  and  heroic.  The  little  Epistle  to  Philemon 
reveals  a perfect  Christian  gentleman,  a nobleman  of  nature, 
doubly  ennobled  by  grace.  The  thirteenth  chapter  of  the  first 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  could  only  be  conceived  by  a mind 
that  had  ascended  on  the  mystic  ladder  of  faith  to  the  throbbing 
heart  of  the  God  of  love ; yet  without  inspiration  even  Paul 
could  not  have  penned  that  seraphic  description  of  the  virtue 
which  beareth  all  things,  belie veth  all  things,  hopeth  all  things, 
endureth  all  things,  which  never  faileth,  but  will  last  for  ever, 
the  greatest  in  the  triad  of  celestial  graces : faith,  hope,  love. 

Saul  converted  became  at  once  Paul  the  missionary.  Being 
saved  himself,  he  made  it  his  life-work  to  save  others.  “ Straight- 
way ” he  proclaimed  Christ  in  the  synagogues,  and  confounded 
the  Jews  of  Damascus,  proving  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  the 
Messiah,  the  Son  of  God.1  But  this  was  only  a preparatory 
testimony  in  the  fervor  of  the  first  love.  The  appearance  of 
Christ,  and  the  travails  of  his  soul  during  the  three  days  and 
nights  of  prayer  and  fasting,  when  he  experienced  nothing  less 
than  a spiritual  death  and  a spiritual  resurrection,  had  so  shaken 
his  physical  and  mental  frame  that  he  felt  the  need  of  pro- 
tracted repose  away  from  the  noise  and  turmoil  of  the  world. 
Besides  there  must  have  been  great  danger  threatening  his  life 
as  soon  as  the  astounding  news  of  his  conversion  became  known 

1 The  ev&eoos  of  Acts  9 : 20  compels  us  to  put  this  short  testimony  during  the 
few  days  (rjfiepas  rivas ) which  he  spent  with  the  disciples  at  Damascus,  before 
his  departure  to  Arabia.  About  three  years  afterwards  (or  after  “ many 
days,”  ijiuLfpai  hcavai , were  fulfilled,  Acts  9 : 23),  he  returned  to  Damascus  to  re- 
new his  testimony  (Gal.  1 : 17). 


318 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


at  Jerusalem.  He  therefore  went  to  the  desert  of  Arabia  and 
spent  there  three  years,'  not  in  missionary  labor  (as  Chrysostom 
thought),  but  chiefly  in  prayer,  meditation  and  the  study  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  in  the  light  of  their  fulfilment  through  the 
person  and  work  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  This  retreat  took  the 
place  of  the  three  years’  preparation  of  the  Twelve  in  the 
school  of  Christ.  Possibly  he  may  have  gone  as  far  as  Mount 
Sinai,  among  the  wild  children  of  Hagar  and  Ishmael.3  On  that 
pulpit  of  the  great  lawgiver  of  Israel,  and  in  view  of  the  sur- 
rounding panorama  of  death  and  desolation  which  reflects  the 
terrible  majesty  of  Jehovah,  as  no  other  spot  on  earth,  he  could 
listen  with  Elijah  to  the  thunder  and  earthquake,  and  the  still 
small  voice,  and  could  study  the  contrast  between  the  killing 
letter  and  the  life-giving  spirit,  between  the  ministration  of 
death  and  the  ministration  of  righteousness.*  The  desert,  like 
the  ocean,  has  its  grandeur  and  sublimity,  and  leaves  the  medi- 
tating mind  alone  with  God  and  eternity. 

“ Paul  was  a unique  man  for  a unique  task.”  4 His  task  was 
twofold : practical  and  theoretical.  He  preached  the  gospel  of 
free  and  universal  grace  from  Damascus  to  Home,  and  secured 
its  triumph  in  the  Homan  empire,  which  means  the  civilized 
world  of  that  age.  At  the  same  time  he  built  up  the  church 
from  within  by  the  exposition  and  defence  of  the  gospel  in  his 
Epistles.  He  descended  to  the  humblest  details  of  ecclesiastical 
administration  and  discipline,  and  mounted  to  the  sublimes! 
heights  of  theological  speculation.  Here  we  have  only  to  do 
with  his  missionary  activity  ; leaving  his  theoretical  work  to  be 
considered  in  another  chapter. 

1 Gal.  1 : 17,  18.  In  the  Acts  (9  : 23)  this  journey  is  ignored  because  it  be- 
longed not  to  the  public,  but  private  and  inner  life  of  Paul. 

5 Comp.  Gal.  4:  25,  where  “ Arabia”  means  the  Sinaitic  Peninsula. 

8 2 Cor.  3 : 6-9. 

4 Thus  Godet  sums  up  his  life  ( Romans , Introd.  I.  59).  He  thinks  that  Paul 
was  neither  the  substitute  of  Judas,  nor  of  James  the  son  of  Zebedee,  but  a 
substitute  for  a converted  Israel,  the  man  who  had,  single-handed,  to  execute 
the  task  which  properly  fell  to  his  whole  nation  ; and  hence  the  hour  of  his 
call  was  precisely  that  when  the  blood  of  the  two  martyrs,  Stephen  and 
James,  sealed  the  hardening  of  Israel  and  decided  its  rejection. 


§ 32.  THE  WORK  OF  PAUL. 


319 


Let  us  first  glance  at  liis  missionary  spirit  and  policy. 

His  inspiring  motive  was  love  to  Christ  and  to  his  fellow-men. 
“ The  love  of  Christ,”  he  says,  “ constraineth  us ; because  we 
thus  judge,  that  one  died  for  all,  therefore  all  died:  and  lie 
died  for  all  that  they  who  live  should  no  longer  live  unto  them- 
selves, but  unto  him  who  for  their  sakes  died  and  rose  again.” 
lie  regarded  himself  as  a bondman  and  ambassador  of  Christ, 
entreating  men  to  be  reconciled  to  God.  Animated  by  this 
spirit,  he  became  “ as  a Jew  to  the  Jews,  as  a Gentile  to  the 
Gentiles,  all  things  to  all  men  that  by  all  means  he  might  save 
some.” 

He  made  Antioch,  the  capital  of  Syria  and  the  mother  church 
of  Gentile  Christendom,  his  point  of  departure  for,  and  return 
from,  his  missionary  journeys,  and  at  the  same  time  he  kept  up 
his  connection  with  Jerusalem,  the  mother  church  of  Jewish 
Christendom.  Although  an  independent  apostle  of  Christ,  he 
accepted  a solemn  commission  from  Antioch  for  his  first  great 
missionary  tour.  He  followed  the  current  of  history,  commerce, 
and  civilization,  from  East  to  West,  from  Asia  to  Europe,  from 
Syria  to  Asia  Minor,  Greece,  Italy,  and  perhaps  as  far  as  Spain.1 
In  the  larger  and  more  influential  cities,  Antioch,  Ephesus,  Cor- 
inth, Rome,  he  resided  a considerable  time.  From  these  salient 
points  he  sent  the  gospel  by  his  pupils  and  fellow-laborers  into 
the  surrounding  towns  and  villages.  But  he  always  avoided 
collision  with  other  apostles,  and  sought  new  fields  of  labor 
where  Christ  was  not  known  before,  that  he  might  not  build  on 
any  other  man’s  foundation.  This  is  true  independence  and 
missionary  courtesy,  which  is  so  often,  alas ! violated  by  mis- 
sionary societies  inspired  by  sectarian  rather  than  Christian  zeal. 

1 “Westward  the  course  of  empire  takes  its  way.”  This  famous  line  of 
Bishop  Berkeley,  the  philosopher,  expresses  a general  law  of  history  both 
civil  and  religious.  Clement  of  Rome  says  that  Paul  came  on  his  missionary 
tour  “to  the  extreme  west”  (iirl  rb  rep/xa  tt)s  Svfrecos),  which  means  either 
Rome  or  Spain,  whither  the  apostle  intended  to  go  (Rom.  15  : 24,  28).  Some 
English  historians  (Ussher,  Stillingfleet,  etc. ) would  extend  Paul’s  travels  to 
Gaul  and  Britain,  but  of  this  there  is  no  trace  either  in  the  New  Test.,  or  in 
the  early  tradition.  See  below. 


320 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


His  chief  mission  was  to  the  Gentiles,  without  excluding  the 
Jews,  according  to  the  message  of  Christ  delivered  through 
Ananias : “ Thou  shalt  bear  my  name  before  the  Gentiles,  and 
kings,  and  the  children  of  Israel.”  Considering  that  the  Jews 
had  a prior  claim  in  time  to  the  gospel,1  and  that  the  syna- 
gogues in  heathen  cities  were  pioneer  stations  for  Christian  mis- 
sions, he  very  naturally  addressed  himself  first  to  the  Jews  and 
proselytes,  taking  up  the  regular  lessons  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures,  and  demonstrating  their  fulfilment  in  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth. But  almost  uniformly  he  found  the  half-Jews,  or  “ prose- 
lytes of  the  gate,”  more  open  to  the  gospel  than  his  own  brethren  ; 
they  were  honest  and  earnest  seekers  of  the  true  religion,  and 
formed  the  natural  bridge  to  the  pure  heathen,  and  the  nucleus 
of  his  congregations,  which  were  generally  composed  of  converts 
from  both  religions. 

In  noble  self-denial  he  earned  his  subsistence  with  his  own 
hands,  as  a tent-maker,  that  he  might  not  be  burthensome  to 
his  congregations  (mostly  belonging  to  the  lower  classes),  that 
he  might  preserve  his  independence,  stop  the  mouths  of  his 
enemies,  and  testify  his  gratitude  to  the  infinite  mercy  of  the 
Lord,  who  had  called  him  from  his  headlong,  fanatical  career  of 
persecution  to  the  office  of  an  apostle  of  free  grace.  He  never 
collected  money  for  himself,  but  for  the  poor  Jewish  Christians 
in  Palestine.  Only  as  an  exception  did  he  receive  gifts  from 
his  converts  at  Philippi,  who  were  peculiarly  dear  to  him.  Yet 
he  repeatedly  enjoins  upon  the  churches  to  care  for  the  liberal 
temporal  support  of  their  teachers  who  break  to  them  the  bread 
of  eternal  life.  The  Saviour  of  the  world  a carpenter!  the 
greatest  preacher  of  the  gospel  a tent-maker  ! 

Of  the  innumerable  difficulties,  dangers,  and  sufferings  which 
he  encountered  with  Jews,  heathens,  and  false  brethren,  we  can 
hardly  form  an  adequate  idea  ; for  the  book  of  Acts  is  only  a 
summary  record.  He  supplements  it  incidentally.  “Of  the 

1 Rom.  1 : 16,  “to  the  Jews  first”  not  on  the  ground  of  a superior  merit 
(the  Jews,  as  a people,  were  most  unworthy  and  ungrateful),  but  on  the  ground 
of  God’s  promise  and  the  historical  order  (Rom.  15:8). 


§ 32.  TIIE  WORK  OF  PAUL. 


321 


Jews  five  times  received  I forty  stripes  save  one.  Three  times 
was  I beaten  with  rods,  once  was  I stoned,  three  times  I suffered 
shipwreck,  a night  and  a day  have  I been  in  the  deep  ; in  journey- 
ings  often,  in  perils  of  rivers,  in  perils  of  robbers,  in  perils 
from  my  countrymen,  in  perils  from  the  heathen,  in  perils  in 
the  city,  in  perils  in  the  wilderness,  in  perils  in  the  sea,  in  perils 
among  false  brethren ; in  labor  and  toil,  in  watchings  often,  in 
hunger  and  thirst,  in  fastings  often,  in  cold  and  nakedness. 
Besides  those  things  that  are  without,  there  is  that  which  press- 
etli  upon  me  daily,  the  anxious  care  for  all  the  churches.  Who 
is  weak,  and  I am  not  weak  ? Who  is  offended,  and  I burn 
not  ? ” 1 Thus  he  wrote  reluctantly  to  the  Corinthians,  in  self- 
vindication against  his  calumniators,  in  the  year  57,  before  his 
longest  and  hardest  trial  in  the  prisons  of  Caesarea  and  Home, 
and  at  least  seven  years  before  his  martyrdom.  He  was 
“pressed  on  every  side,  yet  not  straitened;  perplexed,  yet  not 
in  despair ; pursued,  yet  not  forsaken  ; smitten  down,  yet  not 
destroyed.” 2 His  whole  public  career  was  a continuous  war- 
fare. He  represents  the  church  militant,  or  “marching  and 
conquering  Christianity.”  He  was  “ unus  versus  mundum ,”  in 
a far  higher  sense  than  this  has  been  said  of  Athanasius  the 
Great  when  confronted  with  the  Arian  heresy  and  the  imperial 
heathenism  of  Julian  the  Apostate. 

Yet  he  was  never  unhappy,  but  full  of  joy  and  peace.  He 
exhorted  the  Philippians  from  his  prison  in  Rome  : “ Rejoice  in 
the  Lord  alway ; again  I will  say,  Rejoice.”  In  all  his  conflicts 
with  foes  from  without  and  foes  from  within  Paul  was  “ more 
than  conqueror  ” through  the  grace  of  God  which  was  sufficient 
for  him.  “ For  I am  persuaded,”  he  writes  to  the  Romans  in 
the  strain  of  a sublime  ode  of  triumph,  “ that  neither  death,  nor 
life,  nor  angels,  nor  principalities,  nor  things  present,  nor  things 
to  come,  nor  powers,  nor  height,  nor  depth,  nor  any  other  crea- 
ture shall  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God,  which  is 
in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord.”  * And  his  dying  word  is  an  assur- 


1 2 Cor.  11  • 24-29. 


* 2 Cor.  4 : 8,  9. 


3 Rom.  8 : 31-39. 


322 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


ance  of  victory : “ I have  fought  the  good  fight,  I have  finished 
the  course,  I have  kept  the  faith  : henceforth  there  is  laid  up 
for  me  the  crown  of  righteousness,  which  the  Lord,  the  right- 
eous judge,  shall  give  me  at  that  day : and  not  only  to  me,  but 
also  to  all  them  that  have  loved  his  appearing.” 1 


§ 33.  PauVs  Missionary  Labors. 

The  public  life  of  Paul,  from  the  third  year  after  his  convex 
sion  to  his  martyrdom,  a.d.  40-64,  embraces  a quarter  of  a cen- 
tury, three  great  missionary  campaigns  with  minor  expeditions, 
five  visits  to  Jerusalem,  and  at  least  four  years  of  captivity  in 
Caesarea  and  Pome.  Some  extend  it  to  a.d.  67  or  68.  It  may 
be  divided  into  five  or  six  periods,  as  follows : 

1.  a.d.  40-44.  The  period  of  preparatory  labors  in  Syria 
and  his  native  Cilicia,  partly  alone,  partly  in  connection  with 
Barnabas,  his  senior  fellow-apostle  among  the  Gentiles. 

On  his  return  from  the  Arabian  retreat  Paul  began  his  pub- 
lic ministry  in  earnest  at  Damascus,  preaching  Christ  on  the 
very  spot  where  he  had  been  converted  and  called.  His  testi- 
mony enraged  the  Jews,  who  stirred  up  the  deputy  of  the  king 
of  Arabia  against  him,  but  he  was  saved  for  future  usefulness 
and  let  down  by  the  brethren  in  a basket  through  a window  in 
the  wall  of  the  city.2  Three  years  after  his  conversion  he  went 

1 2 Tim.  4 : 6-8.  We  may  add  here  the  somewhat  panegyric  passage  of 
Clement  of  Rome,  who  apparently  exalts  Paul  above  Peter,  Ep.  ad  Corinth. 
c.  5 : 41  Let  as  set  before  our  eyes  the  good  Apostles.  Peter,  who  on  account 
of  unrighteous  jealousy  endured  not  one  or  two,  but  many  toils,  and  thus 
having  borne  his  testimony  (fj.apTvpT)<ras,  or,  suffered  martyrdom),  went  to  his 
appointed  place  of  glory.  By  reason  of  jealousy  and  strife  Paul  by  his  exam- 
ple pointed  out  the  price  of  patient  endurance.  After  having  been  seven 
times  in  bonds,  driven  into  exile,  stoned,  and  after  having  preached  in  the 
East  and  in  the  West,  he  won  the  noble  reward  of  his  faith,  having  taught 
righteousness  unto  the  whole  world  and  having  reached  the  boundary  of  the 
West ; and  when  he  had  borne  his  testimony  before  the  magistrates,  he  de- 
parted from  the  world  and  went  unto  the  holy  place,  having  become  the 
greatest  example  of  patient  endurance.” 

2 Acts  9 : 23-25  ; comp.  2 Cor.  11 : 32,  33.  The  window  of  escape  is  still 
shown  in  Damascus,  as  is  also  the  street  called  Straight,  the  house  of  Judas, 
and  the  house  of  Ananias.  But  these  local  traditions  are  uncertain. 


§ 33.  PAUL’S  MISSIONARY  LABORS. 


323 


lip  to  Jerusalem  to  make  the  acquaintance  of  Peter  and  spent  a 
fortnight  witli  him.  Besides  him  he  saw  James  the  brother  of 
the  Lord.  Barnabas  introduced  him  to  the  disciples,  who  at 
first  were  afraid  of  him,  but  when  they  heard  of  his  marvellous 
conversion  they  “ glorified  God  ” that  their  persecutor  was  now 
preaching  the  faith  he  had  once  been  laboring  to  destroy.1  He 
did  not  come  to  learn  the  gospel,  having  received  it  already  by 
revelation,  nor  to  be  confirmed  or  ordained,  having  been  called 
“not  from  men,  or  through  man,  but  through  Jesus  Christ.” 
Yet  his  interview  with  Peter  and  James,  though  barely  men- 
tioned, must  have  been  fraught  with  the  deepest  interest. 
Peter,  kind-hearted  and  generous  as  he  was,  would  naturally 
receive  him  with  joy  and  thanksgiving.  He  had  himself  once 
denied  the  Lord — not  malignantly  but  from  weakness — as  Paul 
had  persecuted  the  disciples — ignorantly  in  unbelief.  Both  had 
been  mercifully  pardoned,  both  had  seen  the  Lord,  both  were 
called  to  the  highest  dignity,  both  could  say  from  the  bottom 
of  the  heart : “ Lord  thou  knowest  all  things ; thou  knowest 
that  I love  thee.”  No  doubt  they  would  exchange  their  experi- 
ences and  confirm  each  other  in  their  common  faith. 

It  was  probably  on  this  visit  that  Paul  received  in  a vision  in 
the  temple  the  express  command  of  the  Lord  to  go  quickly  unto 
the  Gentiles.2  Had  he  stayed  longer  at  the  seat  of  the  Sanhedrin, 
he  would  undoubtedly  have  met  the  fate  of  the  martyr  Stephen. 

He  visited  Jerusalem  a second  time  during  the  famine  under 
Claudius,  in  the  year  44,  accompanied  by  Barnabas,  on  a benev- 
olent mission,  bearing  a collection  of  the  Christians  at  Antioch 
for  the  relief  of  the  brethren  in  Judaea.8  On  that  occasion  he 
probably  saw  none  of  the  apostles  on  account  of  the  persecution 
in  which  James  was  beheaded,  and  Peter  imprisoned. 

The  greater  part  of  these  four  years  was  spent  in  missionary 
work  at  Tarsus  and  Antioch. 

1 Gal.  1 : 18-24 ; corap.  Acts  9 : 26,  27. 

2 Acts  22  : 17-21.  It  is  remarkable  that  in  his  prayer  he  confessed  his  sin 
against  4 4 Stephen  the  martyr ; ” thus  making  public  reparation  for  a public 
sin  in  the  city  where  it  was  committed. 

3 Acts  11:  28-30;  12:25. 


324 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


2.  a.d.  45-50.  First  missionary  journey.  In  the  year  45  Paul 
entered  upon  the  first  great  missionary  journey,  in  company 
with  Barnabas  and  Mark,  by  the  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
through  the  prophets  of  the  congregation  at  Antioch.  He  tra- 
versed the  island  of  Cyprus  and  several  provinces  of  Asia  Minor. 
The  conversion  of  the  Homan  proconsul,  Sergius  Paulus,  at 
Paphos;  the  rebuke  and  punishment  of  the  Jewish  sorcerer, 
Ely  mas ; the  marked  success  of  the  gospel  in  Pisidia,  and  the 
bitter  opposition  of  the  unbelieving  Jews ; the  miraculous  heal- 
ing of  a cripple  at  Lystra  ; the  idolatrous  worship  there  offered 
to  Paul  and  Barnabas  by  the  superstitious  heathen,  and  its 
sudden  change  into  hatred  against  them  as  enemies  of  the  gods ; 
the  stoning  of  the  missionaries,  their  escape  from  death,  and 
their  successful  return  to  Antioch,  are  the  leading  incidents  of 
this  tour,  which  is  fully  described  in  the  13th  and  14th  chap- 
ters of  the  Acts. 

This  period  closes  with  the  important  apostolic  conference  at 
Jerusalem,  a.d.  50,  which  will  require  separate  consideration  in 
the  next  section. 

3.  From  a.d.  51-54.  Second  missionary  journey.  After  the 
council  at  Jerusalem  and  the  temporary  adjustment  of  the  dif- 
ference between  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  branches  of  the  church, 
Paul  undertook,  in  the  year  51,  a second  great  journey,  which 
decided  the  Christianization  of  Greece.  He  took  Silas  for  his 
companion.  Having  first  visited  his  old  churches,  he  proceeded, 
with  the  help  of  Silas  and  the  young  convert,  Timothy,  to  estab- 
lish new  ones  through  the  provinces  of  Phrygia  and  Galatia, 
where,  notwithstanding  his  bodily  infirmitjq  he  was  received 
with  open  arms  like  an  angel  of  God. 

From  Troas,  a few  miles  south  of  the  Homeric  Troy  and  the 
entrance  to  the  Hellespont,  he  crossed  over  to  Greece  in  answer  to 
the  Macedonian  cry  : “ Come  over  and  help  us ! ” He  preached 
the  gospel  with  great  success,  first  in  Philippi,  where  he  con- 
verted the  purple  dealer,  Lydia,  and  the  jailor,  and  was  im- 
prisoned with  Silas,  but  miraculously  delivered  and  honorably 
released  ; then  in  Thessalonica,  where  he  was  persecuted  by  the 


§ 33.  Paul’s  missionary  labors. 


325 


Jews,  but  left  a flourishing  church  ; in  Beroea,  where  the  con- 
verts showed  exemplary  zeal  in  searching  the  Scriptures.  In 
Athens,  the  metropolis  of  classical  literature,  he  reasoned  with 
Stoic  and  Epicurean  philosophers,  and  unveiled  to  them  on  Mars’ 
Hill  (Areopagus),  with  consummate  tact  and  wisdom,  though 
without  much  immediate  success,  the  “ unknown  God,”  to  whom 
the  Athenians,  in  their  superstitious  anxiety  to  do  justice  to  all 
possible  divinities,  had  unconsciously  erected  an  altar,  and  Jesus 
Christ,  through  whom  God  will  judge  the  world  in  righteous- 
ness.1 * * 4 * * * In  Corinth,  the  commercial  bridge  between  the  East  and 
the  West,  a flourishing  centre  of  wealth  and  culture,  but  also  a 
sink  of  vice  and  corruption,  the  apostle  spent  eighteen  months, 
and  under  almost  insurmountable  difficulties  he  built  up  a church, 
which  exhibited  all  the  virtues  and  all  the  faults  of  the  Grecian 
character  under  the  influence  of  the  gospel,  and  which  he  hon- 
ored with  two  of  his  most  important  Epistles.9 


1 “Paul  left  Athens,”  says  Farrar  (I.  550  sq.),  “ a despised  and  lonely  man. 
And  yet  his  visit  was  not  in  vain  ....  He  founded  no  church  at  Athens, 
but  there — it  may  be  under  the  fostering  charge  of  the  converted  Areopagite 
— a church  grew  up.  In  the  next  century  it  furnished  to  the  cause  of  Chris- 
tianity its  martyr  bishops  and  its  eloquent  apologists  (Publius,  Quadratus, 
Aristides,  Athenagoras).  In  the  third  century  it  flourished  in  peace  and 
purity.  In  the  fourth  century  it  was  represented  at  Nicaea,  and  the  noble 
rhetoric  of  the  two  great  Christian  friends,  St.  Basil  and  St.  Gregory  of 
Nazianzus,  was  trained  in  its  Christian  schools.  Nor  were  many  centuries  to 
elapse  ere,  unable  to  confront  the  pierced  hands  which  held  a wooden  cross, 
its  myriads  of  deities  had  fled  into  the  dimness  of  outworn  creeds,  and  its 
tutelary  goddess,  in  spite  of  the  flashing  eyes  which  Homer  had  commemo- 
rated, and  the  mighty  spear  which  had  been  moulded  out  of  the  trophies  of 
Marathon,  resigned  her  maiden  chamber  to  the  honour  of  that  meek  Galilaean 
maiden  who  had  lived  under  the  roof  of  the  carpenter  at  Nazareth — the  virgin 
mother  of  the  Lord.”  Yet  Athens  was  one  of  the  last  cities  in  the  Roman 
empire  which  abandoned  idolatry,  and  it  never  took  a prominent  position  in 
church  history.  Its  religion  was  the  worship  of  ancient  Greek  genius  rather 
than  that  of  Christ.  “II  est  bien  moins  disciple  de  Jesus  et  de  saint  Paul  que 

de  Plutarque  et  de  Jidien ,”  says  Renan,  St.  Paul , p.  208.  His  chapter  on  Paul 

in  Athens  is  very  interesting. 

4 In  Corinth  Paul  wrote  that  fearful,  yet  truthful  description  of  pagan  de- 

pravity in  Rom.  1 : 18  sqq.  The  city  was  proverbially  corrupt,  so  that 

KopivbidCona/.  means  to  practise  whoredom,  and  Kopiv^naa-rr\s  a whoremonger. 

The  great  temple  of  Venus  on  the  acropolis  had  more  than  a thousand  courte- 


32  G 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


In  the  spring  of  54  he  returned  by  way  of  Ephesus,  Caesarea, 
and  Jerusalem  to  Antioch. 

During  this  period  he  composed  the  two  Epistles  to  the 
Thessalonians,  which  are  the  earliest  of  his  literary  remains  ex- 
cepting his  missionary  addresses  preserved  in  the  Acts. 

4.  a.d.  54-58.  Third  missionary  tour.  Towards  the  close 
of  the  year  54  Paul  went  to  Ephesus,  and  in  this  renowned 
capital  of  proconsular  Asia  and  of  the  worship  of  Diana,  he 
fixed  for  three  years  the  centre  of  his  missionary  work.  He 
then  revisited  his  churches  in  Macedonia  and  Achaia,  and  re- 
mained three  months  more  in  Corinth  and  the  vicinity. 

During  this  period  he  wrote  the  great  doctrinal  Epistles  to 
the  Galatians,  Corinthians,  and  Homans,  which  mark  the  height 
of  his  activity  and  usefulness. 

5.  a.d.  58-63.  The  period  of  his  two  imprisonments,  with  the 
intervening  winter  voyage  from  Caesarea  to  Home.  In  the  spring 
of  58  he  journeyed,  for  the  fifth  and  last  time,  to  Jerusalem,  by 
way  of  Philippi,  Troas,  Miletus  (where  he  delivered  his  affect- 
ing valedictory  to  the  Ephesian  presbyter-bishops),  Tyre,  and 
Caesarea,  to  carry  again  to  the  poor  brethren  in  Judaea  a contri- 
bution from  the  Christians  of  Greece,  and  by  this  token  of  grat- 
itude and  love  to  cement  the  two  branches  of  the  apostolic 
church  more  firmly  together. 

But  some  fanatical  Jews,  who  bitterly  hated  him  as  an  apos- 
tate and  a seducer  of  the  people,  raised  an  uproar  against  him 
at  Pentecost ; charged  him  with  profaning  the  temple,  because 
he  had  taken  into  it  an  uncircumcised  Greek,  Trophimus; 
dragged  him  out  of  the  sanctuary,  lest  they  should  defile  it  with 
blood,  and  would  undoubtedly  have  killed  him  had  not  Claudius 
Lysias,  the  Homan  tribune,  who  lived  near  by,  come  promptly 
with  his  soldiers  to  the  spot.  This  officer  rescued  Paul,  out  of 
respect  for  his  Homan  citizenship,  from  the  fury  of  the  mob,  set 
him  the  next  day  before  the  Sanhedrin,  and  after  a tumultuous 

zans  devoted  to  the  service  of  lust.  With  good  reason  Bengel  calls  a church 
of  God  in  Corinth  a “ latum  et  ingens  paradoxon  (in  1 Cor.  1 : 2).  See  the 
lively  description  of  Renan,  St.  Paul , ch.  VIII.  pp.  211  sqq. 


§ 33.  PAUL’S  MISSIONARY  LABORS. 


327 


and  fruitless  session  of  the  council,  and  the  discovery  of  a plot 
against  his  life,  sent  him,  with  a strong  military  guard  and  a 
certificate  of  innocence,  to  the  procurator  F elix  in  Caesarea. 

Here  the  apostle  was  confined  two  whole  years  (58-60),  await- 
ing his  trial  before  the  Sanhedrin,  uncondemned,  occasionally 
speaking  before  Felix,  apparently  treated  with  comparative 
mildness,  visited  by  the  Christians,  and  in  some  way  not  known 
to  us  promoting  the  kingdom  of  God.1 

After  the  accession  of  the  new  and  better  procurator,  Festus, 
who  is  known  to  have  succeeded  Felix  in  the  year  60,  Paul,  as 
a Roman  citizen,  appealed  to  the  tribunal  of  Caesar  and  thus 
opened  the  way  to  the  fulfilment  of  his  long-cherished  desire 
to  preach  the  Saviour  of  the  world  in  the  metropolis  of  the 
world.  Having  once  more  testified  his  innocence,  and  spoken 
for  Christ  in  a masterly  defence  before  Festus,  King  Herod 
Agrippa  II.  (the  last  of  the  Herods),  his  sister  Bernice,  and 
the  most  distinguished  men  of  Caesarea,  he  was  sent  in  the 
autumn  of  the  year  60  to  the  emperor.  He  had  a stormy  voy- 
age and  suffered  shipwreck,  which  detained  him  over  winter  at 
Malta.  The  voyage  is  described  with  singular  minuteness  and 
nautical  accuracy  by  Luke  as  an  eye-witness.  In  the  month  of 
March  of  the  year  61,  the  apostle,  with  a few  faithful  com- 
panions, reached  Rome,  a prisoner  of  Christ,  and  yet  freer  and 
mightier  than  the  emperor  on  the  throne.  It  was  the  seventh 
year  of  Kero’s  reign,  when  he  had  already  shown  his  infamous 
character  by  the  murder  of  Agrippina,  his  mother,  in  the  pre- 
vious year,  and  other  acts  of  cruelty. 

In  Rome  Paul  spent  at  least  two  years  till  the  spring  of  63. 
in  easy  confinement,  awaiting  the  decision  of  his  case,  and  sur- 
rounded by  friends  and  fellow-laborers  “ in  his  own  hired  dwell- 
ing.” He  preached  the  gospel  to  the  soldiers  of  the  imperial 

1 Weiss  ( Bibl . TheoL  des  iV.  T7.,  3d  ed.  p.  202)  is  inclined  to  assign  the  compo- 
sition of  the  Epistles  to  the  Colossians  and  Ephesians  to  the  period  of  the 
imprisonment  at  Caesarea.  So  also  Thiersch,  Reuse,  Schenkel,  Meyer,  Zockler, 
Hausrath.  See  Meyer  Com.  on  Epli.  (5th  ed.  by  Woldemar  Schmidt,  1878,  p. 
18),  and  on  the  other  side,  Neander,  Wieseler,  and  Lightfoot  (PhUippians,  3d 
ed.  1873,  p.  29),  who  date  all  the  Epistles  of  the  captivity  from  Rome. 


328 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


body-guard,  who  attended  him ; sent  letters  and  messages  to  his 
distant  churches  in  Asia  Minor  and  Greece ; watched  over  all 
their  spiritual  affairs,  and  completed  in  bonds  his  apostolic 
fidelity  to  the  Lord  and  his  church.1 

In  the  Roman  prison  he  wrote  the  Epistles  to  the  Colossians, 
Ephesians,  Philippians,  and  Philemon. 

6.  a.d.  63  and  64.  With  the  second  year  of  Paul’s  imprison- 
ment in  Rome  the  account  of  Luke  breaks  off,  rather  abruptly, 
yet  appropriately  and  grandly.  Paul’s  arrival  in  Rome  secured 
the  triumph  of  Christianity.  In  this  sense  it  was  true,  “ Roma 
locuta  est , causa  jinita  est .”  And  he  who  spoke  at  Rome  is 
not  dead ; he  is  still  “ preaching  (everywhere)  the  kingdom  of 
God  and  teaching  the  things  concerning  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
with  all  boldness,  none  forbidding  him.” 2 

But  what  became  of  him  after  the  termination  of  those  two 
years  in  the  spring  of  63  ? What  was  the  result  of  the  trial  so 
long  delayed?  Was  he  condemned  to  death?  or  was  he  re- 
leased by  Nero’s  tribunal,  and  thus  permitted  to  labor  for  an- 
other season  ? This  question  is  still  unsettled  among  scholars. 
A vague  tradition  says  that  Paul  was  acquitted  of  the  charge  of 
the  Sanhedrin,  and  after  travelling  again  in  the  East,  perhaps 
also  into  Spain,  was  a second  time  imprisoned  in  Rome  and 
condemned  to  death.  The  assumption  of  a second  Roman  cap- 
tivity relieves  certain  difficulties  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles ; for 
they  seem  to  require  a short  period  of  freedom  between  the  first 
and  a second  Roman  captivity,  and  a visit  to  the  East,3  which  is 
not  recorded  in  the  Acts,  but  which  the  apostle  contemplated 

1 Acts  28  : 30,  31.  Comp,  the  Epistles  of  the  captivity. 

2 Bengel  remarks  on  Acts  28  : 31  : “ Paulus  Romce,  apex  evangdii,  Actorum 
finis:  quae  Lucas  alioqui  (2  Tim.  4 : 1 1 ) facile  potuisset  ad  exitum  Pauli  per - 
ducere.  Hierosolymis  ccepit : Romce  desinit The  abruptness  of  the  close 
seems  not  to  he  accidental,  for,  as  Lightfoot  remarks  ( Com.  on  Philippians, 
p.  3,  note),  there  is  a striking  parallelism  between  the  Acts  and  the  Gospel  of 
Luke  in  their  beginning  and  ending,  and  there  could  be  no  fitter  termination 
of  the  narrative,  since  it  is  the  realization  of  that  promise  of  the  universal 
spread  of  the  gospel  which  is  the  starting-point  of  the  Acts. 

3 Namely,  to  Ephesus,  1 Tim.  1 : 3 ; 2 Tim.  4 : 13,  20  ; to  Crete,  Tit.  1 : 5 
and  to  Nicopolis,  Tit.  3 : 12. 


§ 33.  PAUL’S  MISSIONARY  LABORS. 


320 


in  case  of  liis  release.1  A visit  to  Spain,  which  he  intended, 
is  possible,  though  less  probable.3  If  he  was  set  at  liberty,  it 
must  have  been  before  the  terrible  persecution  in  July,  64, 
which  would  not  have  spared  the  great  leader  of  the  Christian 
sect.  It  is  a remarkable  coincidence  that  just  about  the  close 
of  the  second  year  of  Paul’s  confinement,  the  celebrated  Jewish 
historian,  Josephus,  then  in  his  27th  year,  came  to  Pome  (after 
a tempestuous  voyage  and  shipwreck),  and  effected  through  the 
influence  of  Poppsea  (the  wife  of  Nero  and  a half  proselyte  of 
Judaism)  the  release  of  certain  Jewish  priests  who  had  been 
sent  to  Pome  by  Felix  as  prisoners.3  It  is  not  impossible  that 
Paul  may  have  reaped  the  benefit  of  a general  release  of  Jewish 
prisoners. 

The  martyrdom  of  Paul  under  Nero  is  established  by  the 
unanimous  testimony  of  antiquity.  As  a Poman  citizen,  he  was 
not  crucified,  like  Peter,  but  put  to  death  by  the  sword.*  The 
scene  of  his  martyrdom  is  laid  by  tradition  about  three  miles 
from  Pome,  near  the  Ostian  way,  on  a green  spot,  formerly 
called  Aqtcoe  Salvice , afterwards  Tre  Fontane , from  the  three 
fountains  which  are  said  to  have  miraculously  gushed  forth 
from  the  blood  of  the  apostolic  martyr.  Ilis  relics  w^ere  ulti- 
mately removed  to  the  basilica  of  San  Paolo-fuori-le-Mura,  built 

1 Phil.  1 : 25 ; 2 : 24  ; Philem.  ver.  22.  These  passages,  however,  are  not 
conclusive,  for  the  Apostle  claims  no  infallibility  in  personal  matters  and 
plans ; he  was  wavering  between  the  expectation  and  desire  of  speedy  martyr- 
dom and  further  labors  for  the  brethren,  Phil.  1 : 20-23 ; 2:17.  He  may 
have  been  foiled  in  his  contemplated  visit  to  Philippi  and  Colosse. 

2 Rom.  15  : 24,  28.  Renan  denies  a visit  to  the  Orient,  but  thinks  thatr  the 
last  labors  of  Paul  were  spent  in  Spain  or  Gaul,  and  that  he  died  in  Rome  by 
the  sword,  A.  D.  64  or  later  (IS Antechrist,  106,  190)  Dr.  Plumptre  (in  the 
Introduction  to  his  Com.  on  Luke , and  in  an  Appendix  to  his  Com.  on  Acts ) 
ingeniously  conjectures  some  connection  between  Luke,  Paul’s  companion, 
and  the  famous  poet,  M.  Annaeus  Lucanus  (the  author  of  the  Pharsalia , and 
a nephew  of  Seneca),  who  was  a native  of  Corduba  (Cordova)  in  Spain,  and 
on  this  basis  he  accounts  for  the  favorable  conduct  of  J.  Annaeus  Gallio 
(Seneca’s  brother)  toward  Paul  at  Corinth,  the  early  tradition  of  a friendship 
between  Paul  and  Seneca,  and  Paul’s  journey  to  Spain.  Rather  fanciful 

8 Jos.  Vita,  c.  3.  Comp.  Plumptre,  Lc. 

4 Tertullian  (Be  prcescr.  hceret.  o.  36)  : u Roma  Petrus  passioni  Dominica 
adaquatur , Paulus  Joannis  [ Baptist a]  exitu  coronatur .” 


330 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


by  Theodosius  and  Yalentinian  in  388,  and  recently  recon- 
structed. He  lies  outside  of  Rome,  Peter  inside.  His  memory 
is  celebrated,  together  with  that  of  Peter,  on  the  29th  and  30th 
of  June.1  As  to  the  year  of  his  death,  the  views  vary  from  a.d. 
64  to  69.  The  difference  of  the  place  and  manner  of  his  mar- 
tyrdom suggests  that  he  was  condemned  by  a regular  judicial 
trial,  either  shortly  before,  or  more  probably  a year  or  two  after 
the  horrible  wholesale  massacre  of  Christians  on  the  Vatican 
hill,  in  which  his  Roman  citizenship  would  not  have  been  re- 
garded. If  he  was  released  in  the  spring  of  63,  he  had  a year 
and  a half  for  another  visit  to  the  East  and  to  Spain  before 
the  outbreak  of  the  Neronian  persecution  (after  July,  64) ; but 
tradition  favors  a later  date.  Prudentius  separates  the  martyr- 
dom of  Peter  from  that  of  Paul  by  one  year.  After  that 
persecution  the  Christians  were  everywhere  exposed  to  danger.2 

Assuming  the  release  of  Paul  and  another  visit  to  the  East, 
we  must  locate  the  First  Epistle  to  Timothy  and  the  Epistle  to 
Titus  between  the  first  and  second  Roman  captivity,  and  the 
Second  Epistle  to  Timothy  in  the  second  captivity.  The  last 
was  evidently  written  in  the  certain  view  of  approaching  mar- 
tyrdom ; it  is  the  affectionate  farewell  of  the  aged  apostle  to  his 
beloved  Timothy,  and  his  last  will  and  testament  to  the  militant 
church  below  in  the  bright  prospect  of  the  unfading  crown  in 
the  church  triumphant  above.3 

Thus  ended  the  earthly  course  of  this  great  teacher  of  nations, 
this  apostle  of  victorious  faith,  of  evangelical  freedom,  of  Chris- 
tian progress.  It  was  the  heroic  career  of  a spiritual  conqueroi 
of  immortal  souls  for  Christ,  converting  them  from  the  service 
of  sin  and  Satan  to  the  service  of  the  living  God,  from  the 


1 Comp.  § 26,  pp.  250,  257-259. 

2 Ewald  (VI.  631)  conjectures  that  Paul,  on  hearing  of  the  Neronian  perse- 
cution, hastened  back  to  Rome  of  his  own  accord,  to  bear  testimony  to 
Christ,  and  being  seized  there,  was  again  brought  to  trial  and  condemned  to 
death,  A.D.  65.  Ewald  assumes  an  intervening  visit  to  Spain,  but  not  to  the 
East. 

3 2 Tim.  4 : 6-8.  Bengel  calls  this  Epistle  testamentum  Pauli  et  cycnea 
cantio. 


§ 33.  Paul’s  missionary  labors. 


331 


bondage  of  the  law  to  the  freedom  of  the  gospel,  and  leading 
them  to  the  fountain  of  life  eternal.  He  labored  more  abun- 
dantly than  all  the  other  apostles;  and  yet,  in  sincere  humility, 
he  considered  himself  “ the  least  of  the  apostles,”  and  “ not 
meet  to  be  called  an  apostle,”  because  he  persecuted  the  church 
of  God ; a few  years  later  he  confessed : “I  am  less  than  the 
least  of  all  saints,”  and  shortly  before  his  death : “ I am  the  chief 
of  sinners.”  1 His  humility  grew  as  he  experienced  God’s  mercy 
and  ripened  for  heaven.  Paul  passed  a stranger  and  pilgrim 
through  this  world,  hardly  observed  by  the  mighty  and  the  wise 
of  his  age.  And  yet  how  infinitely  more  noble,  beneficial,  and 
enduring  was  his  life  and  work  than  the  dazzling  march  of  mili- 
tary conquerors,  who,  prompted  by  ambition,  absorbed  millions 
of  treasure  and  myriads  of  lives,  only  to  die  at  last  in  a drunken 
fit  at  Babylon,  or  of  a broken  heart  on  the  rocks  of  St.  Helena ! 
Their  empires  have  long  since  crumbled  into  dust,  but  St.  Paul 
still  remains  one  of  the  foremost  benefactors  of  the  human  race, 
and  the  pulses  of  his  mighty  heart  are  beating  with  stronger 
force  than  ever  throughout  the  Christian  world. 


Note  on  the  Second  Roman  Captivity  of  Paul. 

The  question  of  a second  Roman  captivity  of  Paul  is  a purely  histori- 
cal and  critical  problem,  and  has  no  doctrinal  or  ethical  bearing,  except 
that  it  facilitates  the  defence  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles. 
The  best  scholars  are  still  divided  on  the  subject.  Neander,  Gieseler, 
Bleek,  Ewald,  Lange,  Sabatier,  Godet,  also  Renan  ( Saint  Paul , p.  560, 
and  I! Antechrist,  p.  106),  and  nearly  all  English  biographers  and  com- 
mentators, as  Alford,  Wordsworth,  Howson,  Lewin,  Farrar,  Plumptre, 
Ellicott,  Lightfoot,  defend  the  second  captivity,  and  thus  prolong  the 
labors  of  Paul  for  a few  years.  On  the  other  hand  not  only  radical  and 
skeptical  critics,  as  Baur,  Zeller,  Schenkel,  Reuss,  Holtzmann,  and  all 
who  reject  the  Pastoral  Epistles  (except  Renan),  but  also  conservative 
exegetes  and  historians,  as  Niedner,  Thiersch,  Meyer,  Wieseler,  Ebrard, 
Otto,  Beck,  Pressense,  deny  the  second  captivity.  I have  discussed  the 
problem  at  length  in  my  Hist,  of  the  Apost.  Church , § 87,  pp.  328-347,  and 
again  in  my  annotations  to  Lange  on  Romans,  pp.  10-12.  I will  restate 

1 1 Cor.  15*9  (A.D.  57);  Eph.  3:8  (a.d.  62);  1 Tim.  3:15  (a.d.  63 
or  64  ?). 


332 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


the  chief  arguments  in  favor  of  a second  captivity,  partly  in  rectification 
of  my  former  opinion. 

1.  The  main  argument  are  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  if  genuine,  as  I hold 
them  to  be,  notwithstanding  all  the  objections  of  the  opponents  from 
De  Wette  (1826)  andBaur  (1835)  to  Renan  (1873)  and  Holtzmann  (1880). 
It  is,  indeed,  not  impossible  to  assign  them  to  any  known  period  in 
Paul’s  life  before  his  captivity,  as  during  his  three  years’  sojourn  in 
Ephesus  (54-57),  or  his  eighteen  months’  sojourn  in  Corinth  (52-53), 
but  it  is  very  difficult  to  do  so.  The  Epistles  presuppose  journeys  of 
the  apostle  not  mentioned  in  Acts,  and  belong  apparently  to  an  advanced 
period  in  his  life,  as  well  as  in  the  history  of  truth  and  error  in  the  apos- 
tolic church. 

2.  The  release  of  Timothy  from  a captivity  in  Italy,  probably  in  Rome, 
to  which  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (13  : 23)  alludes,  may 
have  some  connection  with  the  release  of  Paul,  who  had  probably  a share 
in  the  inspiration,  if  not  in  the  composition,  of  that  remarkable  production. 

3.  The  oldest  post-apostolic  witness  is  Clement  of  Rome,  who  wrote 
about  95  : “Paul  ....  having  come  to  the  limit  of  the  West  (ini  to  Ttpfia 
Trjs  duo-eios  e\3a>i/)  and  borne  witness  before  the  magistrates  (papTvpriaas 
enl  tcou  rjyovpivuiv,  which  others  translate,  “having  suffered  martyrdom 
under  the  rulers  ”),  departed  from  the  world  and  went  to  the  holy  place, 
having  furnished  the  sublimest  model  of  endurance”  (Ad  Corinth,  c.  5). 
Considering  that  Clement  wrote  in  Rome,  the  most  natural  interpreta- 
of  rippa  t rjs  SJa-eoK,  “ the  extreme  west,”  is  Spain  or  Britain ; and  as 
Paul  intended  to  carry  the  gospel  to  Spain,  one  would  first  think  of  that 
country,  which  was  in  constant  commercial  intercourse  with  Rome,  and 
had  produced  distinguished  statesmen  and  writers  like  Seneca  and  Lucan. 
Strabo  (II.  1)  calls  the  pillars  of  Hercules  nepara  rijs  oiKovpiurja ; and 
Velleius  Paterc.  calls  Spain  “ extremus  ?iostri  orbis  terminus .”  See  Light- 
foot,  St.  Clement , p.  50.  But  the  inference  is  weakened  by  the  absence 
of  any  trace  or  tradition  of  Paul’s  visit  to  Spain.1  Still  less  can  he  have 
suffered  martyrdom  there,  as  the  logical  order  of  the  words  would  im- 
ply. And  as  Clement  wrote  to  the  Corinthians,  he  may , from  their 
geographical  standpoint,  have  called  the  Roman  capital  the  end  of  the 
West.  At  all  events  the  passage  is  rhetorical  (it  speaks  of  seven  im- 
prisonments, enraKis  Sea  pa  (f)opii ras),  and  proves  nothing  for  further 
labors  in  the  East.2 

1 A Latin  inscription  in  Spain,  which  records  the  success  of  Nero  in  extirpa- 
ting the  new  superstition,  Gruter,  Inscrvpt .,  p.  238,  is  now  commonly  aban- 
doned as  spurious. 

2 I must  here  correct  an  error  into  which  I have  fallen  with  Dr.  Wieseler, 
in  my of  the  Ap.  Ch. , p.  342,  by  rending  v n b rb  reppa,  and  interpreting 
it  “ before  the  highest  tribunal  of  the  West.”  ini  is  the  reading  of  the  Cod. 
Alex,  (though  defectively  written),  as  I have  convinced  myself  by  an  inspcc* 
tion  of  the  Codex  in  the  British  Museum  in  1869,  in  the  presence  of  Mr. 


33.  Paul’s  missionary  labors. 


333 


4.  An  incomplete  passage  in  tlie  fragmentary  Muratorian  canon  (about 
a.d.  170)  : “ Sed  profectionem  Pauli  ab  urbe  ad  Spaniam  projiciscentis 
. . . ” seems  to  imply  a journey  of  Paul  to  Spain,  which  Luke  has 
omitted  ; but  this  is  merely  a conjecture,  as  the  verb  has  to  be  supplied. 
Comp.,  however,  Westcott,  The  Canon  of  the  N.  Test.,  p.  189,  and 
Append.  C.,  p.  467,  and  Renan,  L* Antechrist,  p.  106  sq. 

5.  Eusebius  (d.  340)  first  clearly  asserts  that  “there  is  a tradition 
(Xoyo?  that  the  apostle,  after  his  defence,  again  set  forth  to  the 
ministry  of  his  preaching,  and  having  entered  a second  time  the  same 
city  [Rome],  was  perfected  by  his  martyrdom  before  him  [Nero].”  Hist. 
Eccl.  II.  22  (comp.  ch.  25).  But  the  force  of  this  testimony  is  weakened 
first  by  its  late  date  ; secondly,  by  the  vague  expression  Xuyos  e^et,  “ it  is 
said,”  and  the  absence  of  any  reference  to  older  authorities  (usually 
quoted  by  Eusebius) ; thirdly,  by  his  misunderstanding  of  2 Tim.  4 : 16, 
17,  which  he  explains  in  the  same  connection  of  a deliverance  from  the 
first  imprisonment  (as  if  dnoXoyla  were  identical  with  ot^/xaXcoata) ; and 
lastly  by  his  chronological  mistake  as  to  the  time  of  the  first  imprison- 
ment which,  in  his  “ Chronicle ,”  he  misdates  a.d.  58,  that  is,  three  years 
before  the  actual  arrival  of  Paul  in  Rome.  On  the  other  hand  he  puts 
the  conflagration  of  Rome  two  years  too  late,  a.d.  66,  instead  of  64,  and 
the  Neronian  persecution,  and  the  martyrdom  of  Paul  and  Peter,  in  the 
year  70. 

6.  Jerome  (d.  419)  : “Paul  was  dismissed  by  Nero  that  he  might 
preach  Christ’s  gospel  also  in  the  regions  of  the  West  (in  Occidents 
quoque  partibus).”  De  Vir.  ill.  sub  Paulus.  This  echoes  the  rcp/ia  tt}s 
SwfTfcof  of  Clement.  Chrysostom  (d.  407),  Theodoret,  and  other  fathers 
assert  that  Paul  went  to  Spain  (Rom.  15  : 28),  but  without  adducing  any 
proof. 

These  post-apostolic  testimonies,  taken  together,  make  it  very  proba- 
ble, but  not  historically  certain,  that  Paul  was  released  after  the  spring 
of  63,  and  enjoyed  an  Indian  summer  of  missionary  work  before  his  mar- 
tyrdom. The  only  remaining  monuments,  as  well  as  the  best  proof,  of 
this  concluding  work  are  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  if  we  admit  them  to  be 
genuine.  To  my  mind  the  historical  difficulties  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles 
are  an  argument  for  rather  than  against  their  Pauline  origin.  For  why 
should  a forger  invent  difficulties  when  he  might  so  easily  have  fitted 
his  fictions  in  the  frame  of  the  situation  known  from  the  Acts  and  the 
other  Pauline  Epistles  ? The  linguistic  and  other  objections  are  by  no 
means  insurmountable,  and  are  overborne  by  the  evidence  of  the  Pauline 
spirit  which  animates  these  last  productions  of  his  pen. 

Holmes  and  the  late  Dr.  Tregelles.  The  preposition  stands  at  the  end  of  line 
17,  fol.  159b,  second  col.,  in  the  IYth  vol.  of  the  Codex,  and  is  written  in 
smaller  letters  from  want  of  space,  but  by  the  original  hand.  The  same  read- 
ing is  confirmed  by  the  newly  discovered  MS.  of  Bryennios. 


334 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


§ 34.  The  Synod  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  Compromise  between 
Jewish  and  Gentile  Christia/nity. 

Literature. 


I.  Acts,  ch.  15,  and  Gal.,  ch.  2,  and  the  Commentaries  thereon. 

II.  Besides  the  general  literature  already  noticed  (in  20  and  29),  com- 
pare the  following  special  discussions  on  the  Conference  of  the 
Apostles,  which  tend  to  rectify  the  extreme  view  of  Baur  (Paulas, 
ch.  V.)  and  Overbeck  (in  the  fourth  edition  of  De  Wette’s  Com.  on 
Acts)  on  the  conflict  between  Acts  15  and  Gal.  2,  or  between  Petrin- 
ism  and  Paulinism,  and  to  establish  the  true  historic  view  of  their 
essential  unity  in  diversity. 

Bishop  Lightfoot  : St.  Paul  and  the  Three , in  Com.  cm  Galat., 
London,  1866  (second  ed.),  pp.  283-355.  The  ablest  critical  discus- 
sion of  the  problem  in  the  English  language. 

R.  A.  Lipsius  : A postelconvent,  in  Schenkel’s  Bibel-Lexileon,  I. 
(1869),  pp.  194-207.  A clear  and  sharp  statement  of  eight  apparent 
contradictions  between  Acts  15  and  Gal.  2.  He  admits,  however, 
some  elements  of  truth  in  the  account  of  Acts,  which  he  uses  to 
supplement  the  account  of  Paul.  Schenkel,  in  his  Christusbild  der 
Apostel,  1879,  p.  38,  goes  further,  and  says,  in  opposition  to  Over- 
beck, who  regards  the  account  of  Acts  as  a Tendenz-  Roman , or 
partisan  fiction  : “ The  narrative  of  Paul  is  certainly  trustworthy,  but 
one-sided,  which  was  unavoidable,  considering  his  personal  apologetic 
aim,  and  passes  by  in  silence  what  is  foreign  to  that  aim.  The  narra- 
tive of  Acts  follows  oral  and  written  traditions  which  were  already 
influenced  by  later  views  and  prejudices,  and  it  is  for  this  reason  un- 
reliable in  part,  yet  by  no  means  a conscious  fiction.” 

Otto  Pfleiderer  : Der  Paulinismus.  Leipzig,  1873,  pp.  278 
sqq.  and  500  sqq.  He  tones  down  the  differences  to  innocent  inac- 
curacies of  the  Acts,  and  rejects  the  idea  of  “ intentional  invention.” 

C.  Weizsacker  (successor  of  Dr.  Baur  in  Tubingen,  but  partly 
dissenting  from  him)  : Das  Apostelcondl  in  the  “ Jahrbiiclier  fiir 
deutsche  Theologie”  for  1873,  pp.  191-246.  And  his  essay  on 
Paulas  und  die  Gemeinde  in  Korinth , ibid.,  1876,  pp.  603-653.  In 
the  last  article  he  concludes  (p.  652)  that  the  real  opponents  of  Paul, 
in  Corinth  as  well  as  in  Galatia,  were  not  the  primitive  apostles  (as 
asserted  by  Baur,  Schwegler,  etc.),  but  a set  of  fanatics  who  abused 
the  authority  of  Peter  and  the  name  of  Christ,  and  imitated  the 
agitation  of  Jewish  proselytizers,  as  described  by  Roman  writers. 

K.  Schmidt  : Der  Apostel-Konvent,  in  Herzog  and  Plitt,  R.  K I. 
(1877),  575-584.  Conservative. 

Theod.  Keim  : Aus  dem  Urchristenthum.  Zurich,  1879,  Der  Apos 


§ 34.  TIIE  SYNOD  OF  JERUSALEM. 


335 


telkonvent , pp.  64-89.  (Comp.  Hilgenfeld’s  review  in  the  “Zeit- 
schrift  fur  wissenscliaftl.  Theologie,”  1879,  pp.  100  sqq.)  One  of  the 
last  efforts  of  the  author  of  the  Leben  Jesu  von  Nazara.  Keim  goes  a 
step  further  than  Weizsiicker,  strongly  maintains  the  public  as  well 
as  the  private  character  of  the  apostolic  agreement,  and  admits  the 
circumcision  of  Timothy  as  a fact.  He  also  entirely  rejects  the  view 
of  Baur,  Weizsiicker,  and  Overbeck  that  the  author  of  Acts  derived 
his  information  from  the  Ep.  to  the  Galatians,  and  perverted  it  for 
his  irenic  purpose. 

F.  W.  Farrar  : The  Life  and  Woi'k  of  Paul  (Lond.,  1879),  chs. 
XXH.-XXIII.  (I.  398-454). 

Wilibald  Grimm  : Per  Apostelconvent , in  the  “ Theol.  Studien 
und  Kritiken  ” (Gotha),  for  1880,  pp.  405-432.  A critical  discussion 
in  the  right  direction.  The  exegetical  essay  of  Wetzel  on  Gal.  2 : 14, 
21,  in  the  same  periodical,  pp.  433  sqq.,  bears  in  part  on  the  same 
subject. 

F.  Godet  : Com.  on  the  Ep.  to  the  Romans , vol.  I.  (1879),  pp.  37- 
42,  English  translation.  Able  and  sound. 

Karl  Wieseler  : Zur  Gesch.  der  AT.  T. lichen  Schrift  und  des  Ur - 
chHstenthums.  Leipzig,  1880,  pp.  1-53,  on  the  Corinthian  parties 
and  their  relation  to  the  errorists  in  the  Galatians  and  the  Nicolai- 
tans  in  the  Apocalypse.  Learned,  acute,  and  conservati  /e. 

Comp,  above  § 22,  pp.  213  sqq. ; my  Hist,  of  the  Apost.  Church, 
$§  67-70,  pp.  245-260 ; and  Excursus  on  the  Controversy  between 
Peter  and  Paul,  in  my  Com.  on  the  Galat.  (2 : 11-14). 

The  question  of  circumcision,  or  of  the  terms  of  admission 
of  the  Gentiles  to  the  Christian  church,  was  a burning  question 
of  the  apostolic  age.  It  involved  the  wider  question  of  the 
binding  authority  of  the  Mosaic  law,  yea,  the  whole  relation  of 
Christianity  to  Judaism.  For  circumcision  was  in  the  syna- 
gogue what  baptism  is  in  the  church,  a divinely  appointed  sign 
and  seal  of  the  covenant  of  man  with  God,  with  all  its  privi- 
leges and  responsibilities,  and  bound  the  circumcised  person  to 
obey  the  whole  law  on  pain  of  forfeiting  the  blessing  promised. 
Upon  the  decision  of  this  question  depended  the  peace  of  the 
church  within,  and  the  success  of  the  gospel  without.  With  cir- 
cumcision, as  a necessary  condition  of  church  membership,  Chris- 
tianity would  forever  have  been  confined  to  the  Jewish  race  with 
a small  minority  of  proselytes  of  the  gate,  or  half-Christians ; 
while  the  abrogation  of  circumcision  and  the  declaration  of  the 


336 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


supremacy  and  sufficiency  of  faith  in  Christ  ensured  the  convex 
sion  of  the  heathen  and  the  catholicity  of  Christianity.  The 
progress  of  Paul’s  mission  among  the  Gentiles  forced  the  ques- 
tion to  a solution  and  resulted  in  a grand  act  of  emancipation, 
yet  not  without  great  struggle  and  temporary  reactions. 

All  the  Christians  of  the  first  generation  were  converts  from 
Judaism  or  heathenism.  It  could  not  he  expected  that  they 
should  suddenly  lose  the  influence  of  opposite  kinds  of  reli- 
gious training  and  blend  at  once  in  unity.  Hence  the  differ- 
ence between  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christianity  throughout  the 
apostolic  age,  more  or  less  visible  in  all  departments  of  ecclesias- 
tical life,  in  missions,  doctrine,  worship,  and  government.  At 
the  head  of  the  one  division  stood  Peter,  the  apostle  of  the  cir- 
cumcision ; at  the  head  of  the  other,  Paul,  to  whom  was  in- 
trusted the  apostleship  of  the  uncircumcision.  In  another  form 
the  same  difference  even  yet  appears  between  the  different 
branches  of  Christendom.  The  Catholic  church  is  Jewisli- 
Christian  or  Petrine  in  its  character ; the  Evangelical  church  is 
Gentile  or  Pauline.  And  the  individual  members  of  these 
bodies  lean  to  one  or  the  other  of  these  leading  types.  Wliere- 
ever  there  is  life  and  motion  in  a denomination  or  sect,  there 
will  be  at  least  two  tendencies  of  thought  and  action — whether 
they  be  called  old  and  new  school,  or  high  church  and  low 
church,  or  by  any  other  party  name.  In  like  manner  there  is 
no  free  government  without  parties.  It  is  only  stagnant  waters 
that  never  run  and  overflow,  and  corpses  that  never  move. 

The  relation  between  these  two  fundamental  forms  of  apostolic 
Christianity  is  in  general  that  of  authority  and  freedom,  law  and 
gospel,  the  conservative  and  the  progressive,  the  objective  and 
the  subjective.  These  antithetic  elements  are  not  of  necessity 
mutually  exclusive.  They  are  mutually  complemental,  and  for 
perfect  life  they  must  co-exist  and  co-operate.  But  in  reality 
they  often  run  to  extremes,  and  then  of  course  fall  into  irrecon- 
cilable contradiction.  Exclusive  Jewish  Christianity  sinks  into 
Ebionism  ; exclusive  Gentile  Christianity  into  Gnosticism.  And 
these  heresies  were  by  no  means  confined  to  the  apostolic  and 


§ 34.  TIIE  SYNOD  OF  JERUSALEM. 


337 


post-apostolic  ages ; pseudo-Petrine  and  pseudo-Pauline  errors, 
in  ever-varying  phases,  run  more  or  less  throughout  the  whole 
history  of  the  church. 

The  Jewish  converts  at  first  very  naturally  adhered  as  closely 
as  possible  to  the  sacred  traditions  of  their  fathers.  They  could 
not  believe  that  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament,  revealed  by 
God  himself,  should  pass  away.  They  indeed  regarded  J esus  as 
the  Saviour  of  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews ; but  they  thought  Juda- 
ism the  necessary  introduction  to  Christianity,  circumcision  and 
the  observance  of  the  whole  Mosaic  law  the  sole  condition  of  an 
interest  in  the  Messianic  salvation.  And,  offensive  as  Judaism 
was,  rather  than  attractive,  to  the  heathen,  this  principle  would 
have  utterly  precluded  the  conversion  of  the  mass  of  the  Gentile 
world.1  The  apostles  themselves  were  at  first  trammelled  by  this 
Judaistic  prejudice,  till  taught  better  by  the  special  revelation 
to  Peter  before  the  conversion  of  Cornelius.3 

But  even  after  the  baptism  of  the  uncircumcised  centurion, 
and  Peter’s  defence  of  it  before  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  the  old 
leaven  still  wrought  in  some  Jewish  Christians  who  had  for- 
merly belonged  to  the  rigid  and  exclusive  sect  of  the  Pharisees.3 

1 “ Circumcision,”  says  Renan  (St.  Paul , ch.  III.  p.  67),  “ was,  for  adults, 
a painful  ceremony,  one  not  without  danger,  and  disagreeable  to  the  last 
degree.  It  was  one  of  the  reasons  which  prevented  the  Jews  from  moving 
freely  about  among  other  people,  and  set  them  apart  as  a caste  by  themselves. 
At  the  baths  and  gymnasiums,  those  important  parts  of  the  ancient  cities,  cir- 
cumcision exposed  the  Jew  to  all  sorts  of  affronts.  Every  time  that  the  at- 
tention of  the  Greeks  and  Romans  was  directed  to  this  subject,  outbursts  of 
jestings  followed.  The  Jews  were  very  sensitive  in  this  regard,  and  avenged 
themselves  by  cruel  reprisals.  Several  of  them,  in  order  to  escape  the  ridi- 
cule, and  wishing  to  pass  themselves  off  for  Greeks,  strove  to  efface  the 
original  mark  by  a surgical  operation  of  which  Celsus  has  preserved  us  the 
details.  As  to  the  converts  who  accepted  this  initiation  ceremony,  they  had 
only  one  course  to  pursue,  and  that  was  to  hide  themselves  in  order  to  escape 
sarcastic  taunts.  Never  did  a man  of  the  world  place  himself  in  such  a posi- 
tion ; and  this  is  doubtless  the  reason  why  conversions  to  Judaism  were  much 
more  numerous  among  women  than  among  men,  the  former  not  being  put,  at 
the  very  outset,  to  a test,  in  every  respect  repulsive  and  shocking.  We  have 
many  examples  of  Jewesses  married  to  heathens,  but  not  a single  one  of  a 
Jew  married  to  a heathen  woman.” 

1 Acts,  chs.  10  and  11. 

3 Acts  15  : 1,  5 : rivls  rwv  curb  rrjs  alpetreus  rwv  Qapiffaiuv  irfiri<rT€VK<iTet. 


338 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


They  came  from  Judaea  to  Antioch,  and  taught  the  converts  of 
Paul  and  Barnabas : “ Except  ye  be  circumcised  after  the  man- 
ner  of  Moses,  ye  cannot  be  saved.”  They  no  doubt  appealed  to 
the  Pentateuch,  the  universal  Jewish  tradition,  the  circumcision 
of  Christ,  and  the  practice  of  the  Jewish  apostles,  and  created  a 
serious  disturbance.  These  ex-Pharisees  were  the  same  whom 
Paul,  in  the  heat  of  controversy,  more  severely  calls  a false 
brethren  insidiously  or  stealthily  foisted  in,”  who  intruded  them- 
selves into  the  Christian  brotherhood  as  spies  and  enemies  of 
Christian  liberty. 1 He  clearly  distinguishes  them  not  only  from 
the  apostles,  but  also  from  the  great  majority  of  the  brethren  in 
Judaea  who  sincerely  rejoiced  in  his  conversion  and  glorified 
God  for  it.2  They  were  a small,  but  very  active  and  zealous 
minority,  and  full  of  intrigue.  They  compassed  sea  and  land 
to  make  one  proselyte.  They  were  baptized  with  water,  but 
not  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  They  were  Christians  in  name,  but 
narrow-minded  and  narrow-hearted  Jews  in  fact.  They  were 
scrupulous,  pedantic,  slavish  formalists,  ritualists,  and  tradition- 
alists of  the  malignant  type.  Circumcision  of  the  flesh  was  to 
them  of  more  importance  than  circumcision  of  the  heart,  or  at 
all  events  an  indispensable  condition  of  salvation.3  Such  men 

1 Gal.  2:4:  irapeiaaKToi  (comp.  irapei<r£Zo»<riv  in  2 Pet.  2 : 1)  if/ev$dd€\<pot  din- 
ves  Trupfi<rrj\&ot/  (who  came  in  sideways,  or  crept  in,  sneaked  in  ; comp.  Jude 
4,  tt apeureSvcav)  KaraaKoiryaai  ryv  eXeu&cplav  tj/uluv  ex°l1€y  Xpiartp  Ttj <toD,  iVa 
ypas  KaraBouXun ovciv.  The  emissaries  of  these  Pharisaical  Judaizers  are  ironi- 
cally called  “super-extra-apostles,”  vircpKiav  air6<rro\oi . 2 Cor.  11  :5;  12:  11. 
For  these  are  not  the  real  apostles  (as  Baur  and  his  followers  maintained  in 
flat  contradiction  to  the  connection  of  chs.  10  to  12),  but  identical  with  the 
“ false  apostles,  deceitful  workers,  transforming  themselves  into  apostles  of 
Christ,”  2 Cor.  11 : 13.  Baur’s  monstrous  misinterpretation  has  been  com- 
pletely refuted  by  Weizsacker  (on  Paul  and  the  Congregation  of  Corinth,  l.  c. 
p.  640),  Keim,  Klopper,  Wieseler,  and  Grimm  ( l . c.  432).  Comp,  also  Godefc, 
l.  c.  pp.  49  sq. 

8 Gal.  1 ; 22-24. 

3 To  what  ridiculous  extent  some  Jewish  rabbis  of  the  rigid  school  of  Sham- 
mai  carried  the  overestimate  of  circumcision,  may  be  seen  from  the  following 
deliverances  quoted  by  Farrar  (T.  401)  : “ So  great  is  circumcision  that  but 
for  it  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  would  not  have  created  the  world;  for  it 
is  said  (Jer.  33 : 25),  ‘ But  for  my  covenant  [circumcision]  I would  not  have 
made  day  and  night,  and  the  ordinance  of  heaven  and  earth.”’  “ Abraham 
was  not  called  ‘ perfect  ’ till  he  was  circumcised.” 


§ 34.  THE  SYNOD  OF  JERUSALEM. 


339 


could,  of  course,  not  understand  and  appreciate  Paul,  but  hated 
and  feared  him  as  a dangerous  radical  and  rebel.  Envy  and 
jealousy  mixed  with  their  religious  prejudice.  They  got  alarmed 
at  the  rapid  progress  of  the  gospel  among  the  unclean  Gentiles 
who  threatened  to  soil  the  purity  of  the  church.  They  could 
not  close  their  eyes  to  the  fact  that  the  power  was  fast  passing 
from  Jerusalem  to  Antioch,  and  from  the  Jews  to  the  Gentiles, 
but  instead  of  yielding  to  the  course  of  Providence,  they  deter- 
mined to  resist  it  in  the  name  of  order  and  orthodoxy,  and  to 
keep  the  regulation  of  missionary  operations  and  the  settlement 
of  the  terms  of  church  membership  in  their  own  hands  at  Jeru- 
salem,  the  holy  centre  of  Christendom  and  the  expected  resi- 
dence of  the  Messiah  on  his  return. 

Whoever  has  studied  the  twenty-third  chapter  of  Matthew 
and  the  pages  of  church  history,  and  knows  human  nature,  will 
understand  perfectly  this  class  of  extra-pious  and  extra-orthodox 
fanatics,  whose  race  is  not  dead  yet  and  not  likely  to  die  out. 
They  serve,  however,  the  good  purpose  of  involuntarily  promot- 
ing the  cause  of  evangelical  liberty. 

The  agitation  of  these  Judaizing  partisans  and  zealots  brought 
the  Christian  church,  twenty  years  after  its  founding,  to  the 
brink  of  a split  which  would  have  seriously  impeded  its  prog- 
ress and  endangered  its  final  success. 

The  Conferences  in  Jerusalem. 

To  avert  this  calamity  and  to  settle  this  irrepressible  conflict, 
the  churches  of  Jerusalem  and  Antioch  resolved  to  hold  a pri- 
vate and  a public  conference  at  Jerusalem.  Antioch  sent  Paul 
and  Barnabas  as  commissioners  to  represent  the  Gentile  con- 
verts. Paul,  fully  aware  of  the  gravity  of  the  crisis,  obeyed  at 
the  same  time  an  inner  and  higher  impulse.1  He  also  took  with 
him  Titus,  a native  Greek,  as  a living  specimen  of  what  the 
Spirit  of  God  could  accomplish  without  circumcision.  The  con- 

1 Paul  mentions  the  subjective  motive,  Luke  the  objective  call.  Both  usu- 
ally unite  in  important  trusts.  But  Baur  and  Lipsius  make  this  one  of  the 
irreconcilable  contradictions  1 


340 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


ference  was  held  A.D.  50  or  51  (fourteen  years  after  Paul’s 
conversion).  It  was  the  first  and  in  some  respects  the  most  im- 
portant council  or  synod  held  in  the  history  of  Christendom, 
though  differing  widely  from  the  councils  of  later  times.  It  is 
placed  in  the  middle  of  the  book  of  Acts  as  the  connecting  link 
between  the  two  sections  of  the  apostolic  church  and  the  two 
epochs  of  its  missionary  history. 

The  object  of  the  Jerusalem  consultation  was  twofold  : first, 
to  settle  the  personal  relation  between  the  Jewish  and  Gentile 
apostles,  and  to  divide  their  field  of  labor ; secondly,  to  decide 
the  question  of  circumcision,  and  to  define  the  relation  between 
the  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians.  On  the  first  point  (as  we 
learn  from  Paul)  it  effected  a complete  and  final,  on  the  second 
point  (as  wre  learn  from  Luke)  a partial  and  temporary  settle- 
ment. In  the  nature  of  the  case  the  public  conference  in  which 
the  whole  church  took  part,  was  preceded  and  accompanied  by 
private  consultations  of  the  apostles.1 

1.  Apostolic  .Recognition.  The  pillars  of  the  Jewish  Church, 
James,  Peter,  and  John 2 — whatever  their  views  may  have  been 

1 Luke  reports  the  former  and  hints  at  the  latter  (comp.  ver.  5 and  6)  ; 
Paul  reports  the  private  understanding  and  hints  at  the  public  conference, 
saying  (Gal.  2:2):  “ I laid  (avefrenriv)  before  them  [the  brethren  of  Jerusalem] 
the  gospel  which  I preach  among  the  Gentiles,  but  'privately  before  them  who 
were  of  repute  (or,  before  those  in  authority),”  i.  e.,  the  pillar-apostles  of  the 
circumcision,  James,  Cephas,  and  John,  comp.  ver.  9.  Dr.  Baur  who  denies 
the  public  conference,  mistranslates  /car’  idiav  Se  ro?s  SoKovaiy , “ und  zwar 
wandte  ich  mich  speciell  (specially)  an  die  vorzugsioeise  Geltenden ,”  so  that  to?s 
8oicov<riv  would  be  the  same  as  the  preceding  avrois  ( Paul , ch.  V.  p.  117.  in  the 
English  translation,  I.  122).  But  this  would  have  been  more  naturally  ex- 
pressed by  rots  S qkovviv  lv  avrois,  and  kclt  ISlav,  as  Grimm,  the  lexicographer  of 
the  N.  T.,  remarks  against  Baur  (1.  c.,  p.  412),  does  not  mean  “specially”  at 
all,  but  privatim,  seorsum,  “ apart,”  “ in  private,”  as  in  Mark  4 : 34,  and  /ca t’ 
tSiau  elweTi/,  Diod.  I.  21. 

2 The  order  in  which  they  are  named  by  Paul  is  significant : James  first,  as 
the  bishop  of  Jerusalem  and  the  most  conservative,  John  last,  as  the  most 
liberal  of  the  Jewish  apostles.  There  is  no  irony  in  the  term  ol  Sokovi/tcs  and 
ui  <rrv\oi,  certainly  not  at  the  expense  of  the  apostles  who  were  pillars  in  fact 
as  well  as  in  name  and  repute.  If  there  is  any  irony  in  ver.  6,  faoio't  ir ore  ^rray} 
ouSeV  yoi  $ia<t>ipei,  it  is  directed  against  the  Judaizers  who  overestimated  the 
Jewish  apostles  to  the  disparagement  of  Paul.  Even  Keim  (1.  c.,  p.  74)  takes 
this  view : “ Endlich  mag  man  aufhoren , von  ironischer  Bitterkeit  des  Paulvs 


§ 34.  TITE  SYNOD  OF  JERUSALEM. 


341 


before — were  fully  convinced  by  the  logic  of  events  in  which 
they  recognized  the  hand  of  Providence,  that  Paul  as  well  as 
Barnabas  by  the  extraordinary  success  of  his  labors  had  proven 
himself  to  be  divinely  called  to  the  apostolate  of  the  Gentiles. 
They  took  no  exception  and  made  no  addition  to  his  gospel. 
On  the  contrary,  when  they  saw  that  God  who  gave  grace  and 
strength  to  Peter  for  the  apostleship  of  the  circumcision,  gave 
grace  and  strength  to  Paul  also  for  the  conversion  of  the  uncir- 
cumcision, they  extended  to  him  and  to  Barnabas  the  right 
hand  of  fellowship,  with  the  understanding  that  they  would  di- 
vide as  far  as  practicable  the  large  field  of  labor,  and  that  Paul 
should  manifest  his  brotherly  love  and  cement  the  union  by 
aiding  in  the  support  of  the  poor,  often  persecuted  and  famine- 
stricken  brethren  of  Judaea.  This  service  of  charity  he  had 
cheerfully  done  before,  and  as  cheerfully  and  faithfully  did 
afterward  by  raising  collections  among  his  Greek  congregations 
and  carrying  the  money  in  person  to  Jerusalem.1  Such  is  the 
unequivocal  testimony  of  the  fraternal  understanding  among  the 
apostles  from  the  mouth  of  Paul  himself.  And  the  letter  of 
the  council  officially  recognizes  this  by  mentioning  “ beloved  ” 
Barnabas 2 and  Paul,  as  “ men  who  have  hazarded  their  lives 
for  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.”  This  double  testimony 
of  the  unity  of  the  apostolic  church  is  quite  conclusive  against 
the  modern  invention  of  an  irreconcilable  antagonism  between 
Paul  and  Peter." 

gegenuber  den  Geltenden  zu  reden  : denn  wer  gleich  nachher  den  Bundesschluss 
mit  den  i3aulen  ’ feierlich  und  befriedigt  registrirt , der  hat  seine  Abweisung 
der  menschlichen  Autontdlen  in  v.  6 nicht  dem  Andenken  der  Apostel  geioidmet , 
sondem  dem  notorischen  Uebermuth  der  judenchristlichen  Parteigdnger  in 
Galatien.” 

1 Gal.  2 : 7-10  ; comp.  Acts  11 : 30 ; 24:17;  1 Cor.  16 : 1-3  ; 2 Cor.  8 and 
9 ; Rom.  15  : 25-27. 

2 Barnabas,  as  the  older  disciple,  still  retained  precedence  in  the  Jewish 
church,  and  hence  is  named  first.  A later  forger  would  have  reversed  the 
order. 

3 Dr.  Plumptre  remarks  against  the  Tubingen  critics  (on  Acts  15  : 7) : “Of 
all  doctrines  as  to  the  development  of  the  Christian  church,  that  which  sees 
in  Peter,  James,  and  John  the  leaders  of  a Judaizing  anti-Pauline  party  is, 
perhaps,  the  most  baseless  and  fantastic.  The  fact  that  their  names  were 


342 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


2.  As  regards  the  question  of  circumcision  and  the  status  of 
the  Gentile  Christians,  there  was  a sharp  conflict  of  opinions  in 
open  debate,  under  the  very  shadow  of  the  inspired  apostles.1 
There  was  strong  conviction  and  feeling  on  both  sides,  plausi- 
ble arguments  were  urged,  charges  and  countercharges  made, 
invidious  inferences  drawn,  fatal  consequences  threatened.  But 
the  Holy  Spirit  wTas  also  present,  as  he  is  with  every  meeting  of 
disciples  who  come  together  in  the  name  of  Christ,  and  over- 
ruled the  infirmities  of  human  nature  which  will  crop  out  in 
every  ecclesiastical  assembly. 

The  circumcision  of  Titus,  as  a test  case,  was  of  course 
strongly  demanded  by  the  Pharisaical  legalists,  but  as  strongly 
resisted  by  Paul,  and  not  enforced.3  To  yield  here  even  for  a 
moment  would  have  been  fatal  to  the  cause  of  Christian  liberty, 
and  would  have  implied  a wholesale  circumcision  of  the  Gentile 
converts,  which  was  impossible. 

But  how  could  Paul  consistently  afterwards  circumcise  Timo- 
thy ? 3 The  answer  is  that  he  circumcised  Timothy  as  a Jew, 
not  as  a Gentile,  and  that  he  did  it  as  a voluntary  act  of  expe- 
diency, for  the  purpose  of  making  Timothy  more  useful  among 
the  Jews,  who  had  a claim  on  him  as  the  son  of  a Jewish 

unscrupulously  used  by  that  party,  both  in  their  lifetime  and,  as  the  pseudo- 
Clementine  Homilies  and  Recognitions  show,  after  their  death,  cannot  out- 
weigh their  own  deliberate  words  and  acts.” 

1 This  is  very  evident  from  the  indignant  tone  of  Paul  against  the  Judaizers, 

and  from  the  remark  in  Acts  15:6:  ttoAAtjs  o-vfaryffecos  yevojuevrjs,  comp.  ver. 
2:  yei/ojue'i/rjs  (rraaecos  (factious  party  spirit,  insurrection,  Luke  23  : 19;  Mark 
15  : 7)  teal  ovk  o\lyqs.  Such  strong  terms  show  that  Luke  by  no 

means  casts  the  veil  of  charity  over  the  differences  in  the  apostolic  church. 

2 Gal.  2 : 3-5.  See  the  note  below. 

3 Acts  16:3.  The  silence  of  Luke  concerning  the  non-circumcision  of  Titus 
has  been  distorted  by  the  Tubingen  critics  into  a wilful  suppression  of  fact, 
and  the  mention  of  the  circumcision  of  Timothy  into  a fiction  to  subserve  the 
catholic  unification  of  Petrinism  and  Paulinism.  What  a designing  and  cal- 
culating man  this  anonymous  author  of  the  Acts  must  have  been,  and  yet  not 
shrewd  enough  to  conceal  his  literary  fraud  or  to  make  it  more  plausible  by 
adapting  it  to  the  account  in  the  Galatians,  and  by  mentioning  the  full  under- 
standing between  the  apostles  themselves  ! The  book  of  Acts  is  no  more  a 
full  history  of  the  church  or  of  the  apostles  than  the  Gospels  are  full  biogra- 
phies of  Christ. 


§ 34.  TIIE  SYNOD  OF  JERUSALEM. 


343 


mother,  and  would  not  have  allowed  him  to  teach  in  a syna- 
gogue without  this  token  of  membership ; while  in  the  case  of 
Titus,  a pure  Greek,  circumcision  was  demanded  as  a principle 
and  as  a condition  of  justification  and  salvation.  Paul  was  in- 
flexible in  resisting  the  demands  of  false  brethren,  but  always 
willing  to  accommodate  himself  to  weaJc  brethren,  and  to  become 
as  a Jew  to  the  Jews  and  as  a Gentile  to  the  Gentiles  in  order 
to  save  them  both.1  In  genuine  Christian  freedom  he  cared 
nothing  for  circumcision  or  uncircumcision  as  a mere  rite  or 
external  condition,  and  as  compared  with  the  keeping  of  the 
commandments  of  God  and  the  new  creature  in  Christ.2 

In  the  debate  Peter,  of  course,  as  the  oecumenical  chief  of 
the  Jewish  apostles,  although  at  that  time  no  more  a resident 
of  Jerusalem,  took  a leading  part,  and  made  a noble  speech 
which  accords  entirely  with  his  previous  experience  and  prac- 
tice in  the  house  of  Cornelius,  and  with  his  subsequent  endorse- 
ment of  Paul’s  doctrine.3  lie  was  no  logician,  no  rabbinical 
scholar,  but  he  had  admirable  good  sense  and  practical  tact,  and 
quickly  perceived  the  true  line  of  progress  and  duty.  He  spoke 
in  a tone  of  personal  and  moral  authority,  but  not  of  official  pri- 
macy.4 He  protested  against  imposing  upon  the  neck  of  the 

1 Comp.  Rom.  14  and  15;  1 Cor.  9 : 19-23  ; Acts  21 : 23  -26. 

2 Gal.  5:6;  6:15;  1 Cor.  7 : 19.  Dr.  Plumptre’s  remarks  on  the  last  passage 
are  to  the  point : “ Often  those  who  regard  some  ceremony  as  unimportant 
magnify  the  very  disregard  of  it  into  a necessary  virtue.  The  apostle  care- 
fully guards  against  that  by  expressing  the  nothingness  of  both  circumcision 
and  uncircumcision  (Rom.  2 : 25 ; Gal.  5:6;  6 : 15).  The  circumcision  of 
Timothy,  and  the  refusal  to  circumcise  Titus  by  St.  Paul  himself,  are  illus- 
trations at  once  of  the  application  of  the  truth  here  enforced,  and  of  the 
apostle’s  scrupulous  adherence  to  the  principles  of  his  own  teaching.  To 
have  refused  to  circumcise  Timothy  would  have  attached  some  value  to  non- 
circumcision. To  have  circumcised  Titus  would  have  attached  some  value  to 
circumcision.  ” 

3 Acts  15  : 7-11 ; comp.  10  : 28  sqq. ; 1 Pet.  1 : 12  ; 5 : 12  ; 2 Pet.  3 : 15,  16. 
The  style  of  Peter  is  distinctly  recognizable,  as  in  the  epithet  of  God,  6 nap- 
tiioyy  aarrj  , Acts  15  : 8,  comp.  1 : 24.  Such  minute  coincidences  go  to  strengthen 
the  documentary  trustworthiness  of  the  Acts. 

4 Like  the  Popes,  who  do  not  attend  synods  at  Jerusalem  or  elsewhere  and 
make  speeches,  but  expect  all  doctrinal  controversies  to  be  referred  to  them 
for  their  final  and  infallible  decision. 


o44 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Gentile  disciples  the  unbearable  yoke  of  the  ceremonial  law; 
and  laid  down,  as  clearly  as  Paul,  the  fundamental  principle 
that  “ Jews  as  well  as  Gentiles  are  saved  only  by  the  grace  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.”  1 

After  this  bold  speech,  which  created  a profound  silence  in 
the  assembly,  Barnabas  and  Paul  reported,  as  the  best  practical 
argument,  the  signal  miracles  which  God  had  wrought  among 
the  Gentiles  through  their  instrumentality. 

The  last  and  weightiest  speaker  was  James,  the  brother  of 
the  Lord,  the  local  head  of  the  Jewish  Christian  church  and 
bishop  of  Jerusalem,  who  as  such  seems  to  have  presided  over 
the  council.  lie  represented  as  it  were  the  extreme  right  wing 
of  the  Jewish  church  bordering  close  on  the  Judaizing  faction. 
It  was  through  his  influence  chiefly  no  doubt  that  the  Pharisees 
were  converted  who  created  this  disturbance.  In  a very  char* 
acteristic  speech  he  endorsed  the  sentiments  of  Symeon — he 
preferred  to  call  Peter  by  his  Jewish  name — concerning  the  con- 
version of  the  Gentiles  as  being  in  accordance  with  ancient 
prophecy  and  divine  foreordination  ; but  he  proposed  a compro- 
mise to  the  effect  that  while  the  Gentile  disciples  should  not  be 
troubled  with  circumcision,  they  should  yet  be  exhorted  to  ab- 
stain from  certain  practices  which  were  particularly  offensive  to 
pious  Jews,  namely,  from  eating  meat  offered  to  idols,  from 
tasting  blood,  or  food  of  strangled  animals,  and  from  every  form 
of  carnal  uncleanness.  As  to  the  Jewish  Christians,  they  knew 
their  duty  from  the  law,  and  would  be  expected  to  continue  in 
their  time-honored  habits. 

The  address  of  James  differs  considerably  from  that  of  Peter, 
and  meant  restriction  as  well  as  freedom,  but  after  all  it  con- 
ceded the  main  point  at  issue — salvation  without  circumcision. 
The  address  entirely  accords  in  spirit  and  language  with  his 
own  epistle,  which  represents  the  gospel  as  law,  though  “ the 
perfect  law  of  freedom,”  with  his  later  conduct  toward  Paul  in 
advising  him  to  assume  the  vow  of  the  Nazarites  and  thus  to 

1 Acts  15  : 11  : Si  & rrjt  \apnoi  rov  Kvplov  *1  ri<rov  irioTefioncv  ffoo&fjvai,  Kafr'  tr 
rp6iroi/  nbiKtivoi  (the  heathen).  Comp.  Rom.  10 : 12,  13. 


§ 34.  THE  SYNOD  OF  JERUSALEM. 


345 


contradict  the  prejudices  of  the  myriads  of  converted  Jews,  and 
with  the  Jewish  Christian  tradition  which  represents  him  as  the 
model  of  an  ascetic  saint  equally  revered  by  devout  Jews  and 
Christians,  as  the  “ Rampart  of  the  People  ” (Obliam),  and  the 
intercessor  of  Israel  who  prayed  in  the  temple  without  ceasing 
for  its  conversion  and  for  the  aversion  of  the  impending  doom.1 * 
He  had  more  the  spirit  of  an  ancient  prophet  or  of  John  the 
Baptist  than  the  spirit  of  Jesus  (in  whom  lie  did  not  believe  till 
after  the  resurrection),  but  for  this  very  reason  he  had  most 
authority  over  the  Jewish  Christians,  and  could  reconcile  the 
majority  of  them  to  the  progressive  spirit  of  Paul. 

The  compromise  of  James  was  adopted  and  embodied  in  the 
following  brief  and  fraternal  pastoral  letter  to  the  Gentile 
churches.  It  is  the  oldest  literary  document  of  the  apostolic 
a^e  and  bears  the  marks  of  the  stvle  of  James : 3 

“ The  apostles  and  the  elder  brethren 3 unto  the  brethren  who 
are  of  the  Gentiles  in  Antioch,  Syria,  and  Cilicia,  greeting : 
Forasmuch  as  we  have  heard,  that  some  who  went  out  from  us 
have  troubled  you  with  words,  subverting  your  souls,  to  whom 
we  gave  no  commandment,  it  seemed  good  unto  us,  having  come 
to  be  of  one  accord,  to  choose  out  men  and  send  them  unto 
you  with  our  beloved  Barnabas  and  Paul,  men  that  have  haz- 
arded their  lives  for  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  We 
have  sent  therefore  Judas  and  Silas,  who  themselves  also  shall 
tell  you  the  same  things  by  word  of  mouth.  For  it  seemed 
good  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  to  us,  to  lay  upon  you  no  greater 
burden  than  these  necessary  things : that  ye  abstain  from  meats 

1 Comp.  Acts  15  : 13-21 ; 21 : 18-25  ; James  1 : 25  ; 2:12;  and  the  account 
of  Hegesippus  quoted  in  § 27,  p.  274. 

* The  Gentile  form  of  greeting,  xa'lP€lvi  Acts  : 23,  occurs  again  in  James 
1 : 1.  but  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament,  except  in  the  letter  of  the 
heathen,  Claudius  Lysias  (Acts  23  : 26) ; the  usual  form  being  x^Pls  Kc^ 

This  is  likewise  one  of  those  incidental  coincidences  and  verifications  which 
are  beyond  the  ken  of  a forger. 

3 According  to  the  oldest  reading,  ol  oltt6hto\oi  Ka\  ol  icptafivTepoi  45 €\<pof, 
which  may  also  be  rendered  : 44  the  apostles,  and  the  presbyters,  brethren  ; ” 
comp.  ver.  22.  The  omission  of  a8e\<pol  in  some  MSS.  may  be  due  to  the  la- 
ter practice,  which  excluded  the  laity  from  synodical  deliberations. 


346 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A .D.  1-100. 


sacrificed  to  idols,  and  from  blood,  and  from  tilings  strangled, 
and  from  fornication ; from  which  if  ye  keep  yourselves,  it 
shall  be  well  with  you.  Farewell.”  1 * 

The  decree  was  delivered  by  four  special  messengers,  two  rep- 
resenting the  church  at  Antioch,  Barnabas  and  Paul,  and  two 
from  Jerusalem,  Judas  Barsabbas  and  Silas  (or  Silvanus),  and 
read  to  the  Syrian  and  Cilician  churches  which  were  agitated 
by  the  controversy.3  The  restrictions  remained  in  full  force  at 
least  eight  years,  since  James  reminded  Paul  of  them  on  his 
last  visit  to  Jerusalem  in  58.3  The  Jewish  Christians  observed 
them  no  doubt  with  few  exceptions  till  the  downfall  of  idolatry,4 
and  the  Oriental  church  even  to  this  day  abstains  from  blood 
and  things  strangled ; but  the  Western  church  never  held  itself 
bound  to  this  part  of  the  decree,  or  soon  abandoned  some  of  its 
restrictions. 

Thus  by  moderation  and  mutual  concession  in  the  spirit  of 
peace  and  brotherly  love  a burning  controversy  was  settled,  and 
a split  happily  avoided. 


Analysis  of  the  Decree. 

The  decree  of  the  council  was  a compromise  and  had  two  as- 
pects : it  was  emancipatory,  and  restrictive. 

(1.)  It  was  a decree  of  emancipation  of  the  Gentile  disciples 
from  circumcision  and  the  bondage  of  the  ceremonial  law. 
This  was  the  chief  point  in  dispute,  and  so  far  the  decree  was 

1 Acts  15  : 23-29.  2 Acts  16  : 4. 

3 Acts  21 : 15.  Comp,  also  Rev.  2 : 14,  20.  But  why  does  Paul  never  refer 
to  this  synodical  decree  ? Because  he  could  take  a knowledge  of  it  for 
granted,  or  more  probably  because  he  did  not  like  altogether  its  restrictions, 
which  were  used  by  the  illiberal  constructionists  against  him  and  against 
Peter  at  Antioch  (Gal.  2 : 12).  Weizsiieker  and  Grimm  (1.  c. , p.  423)  admit  the 
historic  character  of  some  such  compromise,  but  transfer  it  to  a later  period 

(Acts  21 : 25),  as  a proposition  made  by  James  of  a modus  vivendi  with  Gentile 
converts,  and  arbitrarily  charge  the  Acts  with  an  anachronism.  But  the  con- 
sultation must  have  come  to  a result,  the  result  embodied  in  a formal  action, 
and  the  action  communicated  to  the  disturbed  churches. 

4 Justin  Martyr,  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  considered  the 
eating  of  ei8wAS&uTa  as  bad  as  idolatry.  Dial.  c.  Tryph.  Jud.  35. 


§ 34.  TIIE  SYNOD  OF  JERUSALEM. 


347 


liberal  and  progressive.  It  settled  tlie  question  of  priiwiph 
once  and  forever.  Paul  bad  triumphed.  Hereafter  tlie  Juda- 
izing  doctrine  of  the  necessity  of  circumcision  for  salvation  was 
a heresy,  a false  gospel,  or  a perversion  of  the  true  gospel,  and 
is  denounced  as  such  by  Paul  in  the  Galatians. 

(2.)  The  decree  was  restrictive  and  conservative  on  questions 
of  expediency  and  comparative  indifference  to  the  Gentile  Chris- 
tians. Under  this  aspect  it  was  a wise  and  necessary  measure 
for  the  apostolic  age,  especially  in  the  East,  where  the  Jewish 
element  prevailed,  but  not  intended  for  universal  and  perma- 
nent use.  In  Western  churches,  as  already  remarked,  it  was 
gradually  abandoned,  as  we  learn  from  Augustine.  It  imposed 
upon  the  Gentile  Christians  abstinence  from  meat  offered  to 
idols,  from  blood,  and  from  things  strangled  (as  fowls  and  other 
animals  caught  in  snares).  The  last  two  points  amounted  to 
the  same  thing.  These  three  restrictions  had  a good  founda- 
tion in  the  Jewish  abhorrence  of  idolatry,  and  every  thing 
connected  with  it,  and  in  the  Levitical  prohibition.1  Without 
them  the  churches  in  Judaea  would  not  have  agreed  to  the 
compact.  Put  it  was  almost  impossible  to  carry  them  out  in 
mixed  or  in  purely  Gentile  congregations ; for  it  would  have 
compelled  the  Gentile  Christians  to  give  up  social  intercourse 
with  their  unconverted  kindred  and  friends,  and  to  keep  sepa- 
rate slaughter-houses,  like  the  Jews,  who  from  fear  of  contami- 
nation with  idolatrous  associations  never  bought  meat  at  the 
public  markets.  Paul  takes  a more  liberal  view  of  this  matter 
— herein  no  doubt  dissenting  somewhat  from  James — namely, 

1 Ex.  34:15;  Lev.  17:7  sqq.  ; Deut.  12  : 23  sqq.  The  reason  assigned  for 
the  prohibition  of  the  taste  of  blood  is  that  ‘‘the  life  of  the  flesh  is  in  the 
blood,”  and  the  pouring  out  of  blood  is  the  means  of  “ the  atonement  for  the 
soul  ” (Lev.  17  : 11).  The  prohibition  of  blood  as  food  was  traced  back  to  the 
time  of  Noah,  Gen.  9 : 4,  and  seems  to  have  been  included  in  the  seven 
“Noachian  commandments”  so-called,  which  were  imposed  upon  the  prose- 
lytes of  the  gate,  although  the  Talmud  nowhere  specifies  them  very  clearly. 
The  Moslems  likewise  abhor  the  tasting  of  blood.  But  the  Greeks  and  Romans 
regarded  it  as  a delicacy.  It  was  a stretch  of  liberality  on  the  part  of  the 
Jews  that  pork  was  not  included  among  the  forbidden  articles  of  food.  Bent- 
ley proposed  to  read  in  Acts  15  : 20  iropKcla  (from  tt ipicos,  porcus)  for  iropvda^ 
but  without  a shadow  of  evidence. 


348 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


that  the  eating  of  meat  sacrificed  to  idols  was  in  itself  indiffer- 
ent, in  view  of  the  vanity  of  idols  ; nevertheless  he  likewise  com- 
mands the  Corinthians  to  abstain  from  such  meat  out  of  regard 
for  tender  and  weak  consciences,  and  lays  down  the  golden  rule : 
“ All  things  are  lawful,  but  all  things  are  not  expedient ; all 
things  are  lawful,  but  all  things  edify  not.  Let  no  man  seek 
his  own,  but  his  neighbor’s  good.” 1 

It  seems  strange  to  a modern  reader  that  with  these  ceremonial 
prohibitions  should  be  connected  the  strictly  moral  prohibition  of 
fornication.2  But  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  heathen  con- 
science as  to  sexual  intercourse  was  exceedingly  lax,  and  looked 
upon  it  as  a matter  of  indifference,  like  eating  and  drinking,  and 
as  sinful  only  in  case  of  adultery  where  the  rights  of  a husband 
are  invaded.  Ho  heathen  moralist,  not  even  Socrates,  or  Plato, 
or  Cicero,  condemned  fornication  absolutely.  It  was  sanctioned 
by  the  worship  of  Aphrodite  at  Corinth  and  Paphos,  and  prac- 
tised to  her  honor  by  a host  of  liarlot-priestesses ! Idolatry  or 
spiritual  whoredom  is  almost  inseparable  from  bodily  pollution. 
In  the  case  of  Solomon  polytheism  and  polygamy  went  hand  in 
hand.  Hence  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse  also  closely  con- 
nects the  eating  of  meat  offered  to  idols  with  fornication,  and 
denounces  them  together.3  Paul  had  to  struggle  against  this 
laxity  in  the  Corinthian  congregation,  and  condemns  all  carnal 
uncleanness  as  a violation  and  profanation  of  the  temple  of  God.4 

In  this  absolute  prohibition  of  sexual  impurity  we  have  a 
striking  evidence  of  the  regenerating  and  sanctifying  influence 
of  Christianity.  Even  the  ascetic  excesses  of  the  post-apostolic 

1 1 Cor.  8 : 7-13  ; 10  : 23-33  ; Rom.  14  : 2,  21  ; 1 Tim.  4 : 4. 

2 The  word  itopyela,  without  addition,  must  be  taken  in  its  usual  sense,  and 
cannot  mean  illegitimate  marriages  alone,  which  were  forbidden  to  the  Jews, 
Ex.  34  ; Lev.  18,  although  it  may  include  them. 

3 Apoc.  2 : 14,  20. 

4 1 Cor.  6 : 13-20 ; comp.  5 : 9 ; 1 Thess.  4:4,  5 ; Eph.  5 : 3,  5;  Col.  3 : 5. 
What  a contrast  between  these  passages  and  the  sentence  of  Micio  in  Terence . 

“ Non  est  jlagitium , mihi  ci'ede,  adulescentulnm 
Scortari , neque  potare." — Adelph.  i.  2.  21,  22.  (Ed.  Fleckeisen,  p.  290.) 

To  which,  however,  Demea  (his  more  virtuous  married  brother)  replies : 

“ Pro  Juppiter , tu  homo  adigis  me  ad  insaniam. 

Non  est  Jlagitium  facer  e hcec  adulescentulnm  ? ” — Adelph.  i.  2.  31,  32. 


§ 34.  TIIE  SYNOD  OF  JERUSALEM. 


349 


writers  wlio  denounced  the  second  marriage  as  “ decent  adul- 
tery ” ( evirpeTTT) ? yaot^eta),  and  glorified  celibacy  as  a higher  and 
better  state  than  honorable  wedlock,  command  our  respect,  as  a 
wholesome  and  necessary  reaction  against  the  opposite  excesses 
of  heathen  licentiousness. 

So  far  then  as  the  Gentile  Christians  were  concerned  the 
question  was  settled. 

The  status  of  the  Jewisn  Christians  was  no  subject  of  con- 
troversy, and  hence  the  decree  is  silent  about  them.  They  were 
expected  to  continue  in  their  ancestral  traditions  and  customs  as 
far  as  they  were  at  all  consistent  with  loyalty  to  Christ.  They 
needed  no  instruction  as  to  their  duty,  “for,”  said  James,  in  his 
address  to  the  Council,  “ Moses  from  generations  of  old  has  in 
every  city  those  who  preach  him,  being  read  in  the  synagogues 
every  Sabbath.” 1 And  eight  years  afterwards  he  and  his  eld- 
ers intimated  to  Paul  that  even  he,  as  a Jew,  was  expected  to 
observe  the  ceremonial  law,  and  that  the  exemption  was  only 
meant  for  the  Gentiles.3 

But  just  here  was  a point  where  the  decree  was  deficient.  It 
went  far  enough  for  the  temporary  emergency,  and  as  far  as  the 
Jewish  church  was  willing  to  go,  but  not  far  enough  for  the 
cause  of  Christian  union  and  Christian  liberty  in  its  legitimate 
development. 

1 Acts  15  : 21 ; comp.  IB  : 15  ; 2 Cor.  3 : 14,  15. 

2 Acts  21 : 20-25.  Irenseus  understood  the  decree  in  this  sense  ( Adv . Hcer. 
III.  12,  15  : “ Hi  qui  circa  Jacobum  apostoli  gentibus  quidem  libere  agere  per - 
mittebant ; ipsi  vero  ....  perseverabant  in  pristinis  observationibus  .... 
religiose  agebant  circa  dispositionem  legis  qua,  est  secundum  Mosem .”  Pfleiderer 
{l.  c.  284)  takes  a similar  view  on  this  point,  which  is  often  overlooked,  and 
yet  most  important  for  the  proper  understanding  of  the  subsequent  reaction. 
He  says  : “ Die  Judenchristen  betreffend , wurde  dabei  stillschweigend  als  selbst- 
verstandliche  Voraussetzung  angenommen . dass  bei  diesen  AUes  beim  Alten  bleibe , 
dass  also  aus  der  Gesetzesfreiheit  der  Heidenchristen  keinerlei  Consequenzen  fur 
die  Abrogation  des  Gesetzes  unter  den  Judenchristen  zu  ziehen  seien  ; auf  dieser 
Voraussetzung  beruhte  die  Beschrankung  der  Cilteren  Apostel  auf  die  Wirksam- 
keit  bei  den  Juden  ( da  eine  Ueberschreitung  dieser  Schranke  ohne  Verletzung 
des  Gesetzes  nicht  moglich  war) ; auf  dieser  Voraussetzung  beruhte  die  Sendung 
der  Leute  von  Jakobus  aus  Jerusalem  nach  Antiochia  und  beruhte  den'  Einfluss 
dersdben  auf  Petrus,  dessen  vorhergegangenes  freieres  Verhalten  dadurch  als 
eine  Ausnahme  von  der  Regel  gekennzeichnet  wird .” 


350 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Notes. 

1.  The  Apostolic  Conference  at  Jerusalem. — This  has  been  one  of 
the  chief  battle-fields  of  modern  historical  criticism.  The  controversy 
of  circumcision  has  been  fought  over  again  in  German,  French,  Dutch, 
and  English  books  and  essays,  and  the  result  is  a clearer  insight  both 
into  the  difference  and  into  the  harmony  of  the  apostolic  church. 

We  have  two  accounts  of  the  Conference,  one  from  Paul  in  the  second 
chapter  of  the  Galatians,  and  one  from  his  faithful  companion,  Luke,  in 
the  15th  chapter  of  Acts.  For  it  is  now  almost  universally  admitted 
that  they  refer  to  the  same  event.  They  must  be  combined  to  make  up 
a full  history.  The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  is  the  true  key  to  the  posh 
tion,  the  Archimedian  nov  arco. 

The  accounts  agree  as  to  the  contending  parties — Jerusalem  and  An- 
tioch— the  leaders  on  both  sides,  the  topic  of  controversy,  the  sharp 
conflict,  and  the  peaceful  result. 

But  in  other  respects  they  differ  considerably  and  supplement  each 
other.  Paul,  in  a polemic  vindication  of  his  independent  apostolic 
authority  against  his  Judaizing  antagonists  in  Galatia,  a few  years  after 
the  Council  (about  56),  dwells  chiefly  on  his  personal  understanding 
with  the  other  apostles  and  their  recognition  of  his  authority,  but  he 
expressly  hints  also  at  public  conferences,  which  could  not  be  avoided ; 
for  it  was  a controversy  between  the  churches,  and  an  agreement  con- 
cluded by  the  leading  apostles  on  both  sides  was  of  general  authority, 
even  if  it  was  disregarded  by  a heretical  party.  Luke,  on  the  other 
hand,  writing  after  the  lapse  of  at  least  thirteen  years  (about  63)  a calm 
and  objective  history  of  the  primitive  church,  gives  (probably  from  Jeru- 
salem and  Antioch  documents,  but  certainly  not  from  Paul’s  Epistles) 
the  official  action  of  the  public  assembly,  with  an  abridgment  of  the  pre- 
ceding debates,  without  excluding  private  conferences  ; on  the  contrary 
he  rather  includes  them  ; for  he  reports,  15  : 5,  that  Paul  and  Barnabas 
“ were  received  by  the  church  and  the  apostles  and  elders  and  declared 
all  things  that  God  had  done  with  them,”  before  he  gives  an  account  of 
the  public  consultation,  ver.  6.  In  all  assemblies,  ecclesiastical  and 
political,  the  more  important  business  is  prepared  and  matured  by  com- 
mittees in  private  conference  for  public  discussion  and  action  ; and  there 
is  no  reason  why  the  council  in  Jerusalem  should  have  made  an  excep- 
tion. The  difference  of  aim  then  explains,  in  part  at  least,  the  omissions 
and  minor  variations  of  the  two  accounts,  which  we  have  endeavored  to 
adjust  in  this  section. 

The  ultra-  and  pseudo-Pauline  hypercriticism  of  the  Tiibingen  school 
in  several  discussions  (by  Baur,  Schwegler,  Zeller,  Hilgenfeld,  Yolkmar, 
Holsten,  Overbeck,  Lipsius,  Hausrath,  and  Wittichen)  has  greatly  ex- 
aggerated these  differences,  and  used  Paul’s  terse  polemic  allusions  as  a 
lever  for  the  overthrow  of  the  credibility  of  the  Acts.  But  a more  con* 


§ 34.  THE  SYNOD  OF  JERUSALEM. 


351 


servative  critical  reaction  has  recently  taken  place,  partly  in  the  same 
school  (as  indicated  in  the  literature  above),  which  tends  to  harmonize 
the  two  accounts  and  to  vindicate  the  essential  consensus  of  Petrinism 
and  Paulinism. 

2.  The  Circumcision  op  Titus. — We  hold  with  most  commentators 
that  Titus  was  not  circumcised.  This  is  the  natural  sense  of  the  difficult 
and  much  disputed  passage,  Gal.  2 : 3-5,  no  matter  whether  we  take  dk 
in  ver.  4 in  the  explanatory  sense  (nempe,  and  that),  or  in  the  usual  adver- 
sative sense  ( autem , sed,  but).  In  the  former  case  the  sentence  is  regular, 
in  the  latter  it  is  broken,  or  designedly  incomplete,  and  implies  perhaps 
a slight  censure  of  the  other  apostles,  who  may  have  first  recommended 
the  circumcision  of  Titus  as  a measure  of  prudence  and  conciliation  out 
of  regard  to  conservative  scruples,  but  desisted  from  it  on  the  strong  re- 
monstrance of  Paul.  If  we  press  the  rjvayKiHrSr},  compelled,  in  ver.  3,  such 
an  inference  might  easily  be  drawn,  but  there  was  in  Paul’s  mind  a con- 
flict between  the  duty  of  frankness  and  the  duty  of  courtesy  to  his  older 
colleagues.  So  Dr.  Lightfoot  accounts  for  the  broken  grammar  of  the 
sentence,  “which  was  wrecked  on  the  hidden  rock  of  the  counsels  of  the 
apostles  of  the  circumcision.” 

Quite  another  view  was  taken  by  Tertullian  ( Adv . Marc.,  Y.  3),  and 
recently  by  Kenan  (ch.  III.  p.  89)  and  Farrar  (I.  415),  namely,  that  Titus 
voluntarily  submitted  to  circumcision  for  the  sake  of  peace,  either  in 
spite  of  the  remonstrance  of  Paul,  or  rather  with  his  reluctant  consent. 
Paul  seems  to  say  that  Titus  was  not  circumcised,  but  implies  that  he  was. 
This  view  is  based  on  the  omission  of  of?  ovftk  in  ver.  5.  The  passage 
then  would  have  to  be  supplemented  in  this  way  : “ But  not  even  Titus 
was  compelled  to  be  circumcised,  but  [he  submitted  to  circumcision  vol- 
untarily] on  account  of  the  stealthily  introduced  false  brethren,  to  whom 
we  yielded  byway  of  submission  for  an  hour  [i.e.,  temporarily].”  Renan 
thus  explains  the  meaning  : “If  Titus  was  circumcised,  it  is  not  because 
he  was  forced , but  on  account  of  the  false  brethren,  to  whom  we  might 
yield  for  a moment  without  submitting  ourselves  in  principle.”  He 
thinks  that  n p6?  &pav  is  opposed  to  the  following  bia^lvi].  In  other 
words,  Paul  stooped  to  conquer.  He  yielded  for  a moment  by  a stretch 
of  charity  or  a stroke  of  policy,  in  order  to  save  Titus  from  violence,  or 
to  bring  his  case  properly  before  the  Council  and  to  achieve  a permanent 
victory  of  principle.  But  this  view  is  entirely  inconsistent  not  only  with 
the  frankness  and  firmness  of  Paul  on  a question  of  principle,  with  the 
gravity  of  the  crisis,  with  the  uncompromising  tone  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians,  but  also  with  the  addresses  of  Peter  and  James,  and  with  the 
decree  of  the  Council.  If  Titus  was  really  circumcised,  Paul  would  have 
said  so,  and  explained  his  relation  to  the  fact.  Moreover,  the  testimony 
of  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian  against  of?  ovbk  must  give  way  to  the  authority 
of  the  best  uncials  B A C,  etc.)  and  versions  in  favor  of  these  words. 
The  omission  can  be  better  explained  from  carelessness  or  dogmatic 
prejudice  than  the  insertion. 


352 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


§ 35.  The  Conservative  Reaction , and  the  Liberal  Victory — 
Peter  and  Paul  at  Antioch. 

The  Jerusalem  compromise,  like  every  other  compromise,  was 
liable  to  a double  construction,  and  had  in  it  the  seed  of  future 
troubles.  It  was  an  armistice  rather  than  a final  settlement. 
Principles  must  and  will  work  themselves  out,  and  the  one  or 
the  other  must  triumph. 

A liberal  construction  of  the  spirit  of  the  decree  seemed  to 
demand  full  communion  of  the  Jewish  Christians  with  their 
uncircumcised  Gentile  brethren,  even  at  the  Lord’s  table,  in  the 
weekly  or  daily  agapae,  on  the  basis  of  the  common  saving  faith 
in  Christ,  their  common  Lord  and  Saviour.  But  a strict  con- 
struction of  the  letter  stopped  with  the  recognition  of  the  gen- 
eral Christian  character  of  the  Gentile  converts,  and  guarded 
against  ecclesiastical  amalgamation  on  the  ground  of  the  con- 
tinued obligation  of  the  Jewish  converts  to  obey  the  ceremonial 
law,  including  the  observance  of  circumcision,  of  the  Sabbath 
and  new  moons,  and  the  various  regulations  about  clean  and 
unclean  meats,  which  virtually  forbid  social  intercourse  with 
unclean  Gentiles.1 

1 Without  intending  any  censure,  we  may  illustrate  the  position  of  the  strict 
constructionists  of  the  school  of  St.  James  by  similar  examples  of  conscien- 
tious and  scrupulous  exclusiveness.  Roman  Catholics  know  no  church  but 
their  own.  and  refuse  all  religious  fellowship  with  non  Catholics  ; yet  many  of 
them  will  admit  the  action  of  divine  grace  and  the  possibility  of  salvation  out- 
side of  the  limits  of  the  papacy.  Some  Lutherans  maintain  the  principle  : 

Lutheran  pulpits  for  Lutheran  ministers  only  ; Lutheran  altars  for  Lutheran 
communicants  only.”  Luther  himself  refused  at  Marburg  the  hand  of  fellow- 
ship to  Zwingli,  who  was  certainly  a Christian,  and  agreed  with  him  in  four- 
teen out  of  fifteen  articles  of  doctrine.  High  church  Anglicans  recognize  no 
valid  ministry  without  episcopal  ordination  ; close  communion  Baptists  admit 
no  valid  baptism  but  by  immersion ; and  yet  the  Episcopalians  do  not  deny 
the  Christian  character  of  non-Episcopalians,  nor  the  Baptists  the  Christian 
character  of  Pedo-Baptists,  while  they  would  refuse  to  sit  with  them  at  the 
Lord’s  table.  There  are  psalm-singing  Presbyterians  who  would  not  even 
worship,  and  much  less  commune,  with  other  Presbyterians  who  sing  what 
they  call  “ uninspired  ” hymns.  In  all  these  cases,  whether  consistently  or 
not,  a distinction  is  made  between  Christian  fellowship  and  church  fellowship. 


§ 35.  PETER  AND  PAUL  AT  ANTIOCH. 


353 


The  conservative  view  was  orthodox,  and  must  not  be  con- 
founded with  the  Judaizing  heresy  which  demanded  circum- 
cision from  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  the  Jews,  and  made  it  a term 
of  church  membership  and  a condition  of  salvation.  This  doc- 
trine had  been  condemned  once  for  all  by  the  Jerusalem  agree- 
ment, and  was  held  hereafter  only  by  the  malignant  pliarisaical 
faction  of  the  Judaizers. 

The  church  of  Jerusalem,  being  composed  entirely  of  Jewish 
converts,  would  naturally  take  the  conservative  view ; while  the 
church  of  Antioch,  where  the  Gentile  element  prevailed,  would 
as  naturally  prefer  the  liberal  interpretation,  which  had  the  cer- 
tain prospect  of  ultimate  success.  James,  who  perhaps  never 
went  outside  of  Palestine,  far  from  denying  the  Christian  char- 
acter of  the  Gentile  converts,  would  yet  keep  them  at  a respect- 
ful distance ; while  Peter,  with  his  impulsive,  generous  nature, 
and  in  keeping  with  his  more  general  vocation,  carried  out  in 
practice  the  conviction  he  had  so  boldly  professed  in  Jerusalem, 
and  on  a visit  to  Antioch,  shortly  after  the  Jerusalem  Council 
(a.d.  51),  openly  and  habitually  communed  at  table  with  the 
Gentile  brethren.1  He  had  already  once  before  eaten  in  the 
house  of  the  uncircumcised  Cornelius  at  Caesarea,  seeing  that 
M God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  but  in  every  nation  he  that  fear- 
eth  him  and  worketh  righteousness  is  acceptable  to  him.” 2 


With  reference  to  all  these  and  other  forms  of  exclusiveness  we  would  say  in 
the  spirit  of  Paul : “In  Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision”  (viewed  as  a mere 
sign)  “ availeth  anything,  nor  uncircumcision,”  neither  Catholicism  nor  Pro- 
testantism, neither  Lutheranism  nor  Calvinism,  neither  Calvinism  nor  Armi- 
nianism,  neither  episcopacy  nor  presbytery,  neither  immersion  nor  pouring 
nor  sprinkling,  nor  any  other  accidental  distinction  of  birth  and  outward  con- 
dition, but  1 4 a new  creature,  faith  working  through  love,  and  the  keeping  of 
the  commandments  of  God.”  Gal.  5:6;  6:15;  1 Cor.  7 : 19. 

1 The  imperfect  nera  ruv  i&v&v.  Gal.  2 : 12,  indicates  habit : he 

used  to  eat  with  the  uncircumcised  Christians.  This  is  the  best  proof  from 
the  pen  of  Paul  himself  that  Peter  agreed  with  him  in  principle  and  even  in 
his  usual  practice.  The  eating  refers,  in  all  probability,  not  only  to  common 
meals,  but  also  to  the  primitive  love-feasts  (agapae)  and  the  holy  communion, 
where  brotherly  recognition  and  fellowship  is  consummated  and  sealed. 

2 Acts  10  : 27-29,  34,  35  ; 11  : 3 : “ thou  wentest  in  to  men  uncircumcised 
and  didst  eat  with  them.” 


354 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


But  when  some  delegates  of  James 1 arrived  from  Jerusalem 
and  remonstrated  with  him  for  his  conduct,  he  timidly  withdrew 
from  fellowship  with  the  uncircumcised  followers  of  Christ,  and 
thus  virtually  disowned  them.  He  unwittingly  again  denied  his 
Lord  from  the  fear  of  man,  but  this  time  in  the  persons  of  his 
Gentile  disciples.  The  inconsistency  is  characteristic  of  his  im- 
pulsive temper,  which  made  him  timid  or  bold  according  to  the 
nature  of  the  momentary  impression.  It  is  not  stated  whether 
these  delegates  simply  carried  out  the  instructions  of  James  or 
went  beyond  them.  The  former  is  more  probable  from  what 
we  know  of  him,  and  explains  more  easily  the  conduct  of  Peter, 
who  would  scarcely  have  been  influenced  by  casual  and  unofficial 
visitors.  They  were  perhaps  officers  in  the  congregation  of 
J erusalem ; at  all  events  men  of  weight,  not  Pharisees  exactly, 
yet  extremely  conservative  and  cautious,  and  afraid  of  miscella- 
neous company,  which  might  endanger  the  purity  and  orthodoxy 
of  the  venerable  mother  church  of  Christendom.  They  did,  of 
course,  not  demand  the  circumcision  of  the  Gentile  Christians, 
for  this  would  have  been  in  direct  opposition  to  the  synodical 
decree,  but  they  no  doubt  reminded  Peter  of  the  understanding 
of  the  Jerusalem  compact  concerning  the  duty  of  Jewish  Chris- 
tians, which  he  above  all  others  should  scrupulously  keep.  They 
represented  to  him  that  his  conduct  was  at  least  very  hasty  and 
premature,  and  calculated  to  hinder  the  conversion  of  the  Jew- 
ish nation,  which  was  still  the  object  of  their  dearest  hopes  and 
most  fervent  prayers.  The  pressure  must  have  been  very  strong, 
for  even  Barnabas,  who  had  stood  side  by  side  with  Paul  at 
Jerusalem  in  the  defence  of  the  rights  of  the  Gentile  Christians, 
was  intimidated  and  carried  away  by  the  example  of  the  chief 
of  the  apostles. 

The  subsequent  separation  of  Paul  from  Barnabas  and 
Mark,  which  the  author  of  Acts  frankly  relates,  was  no  doubt 

1 rives  curb  ’IaKcuflov,  Gal.  2:12,  seems  to  imply  that  they  were  sent  by 
James  (comp.  Matt.  26  : 47  ; Mark  5 : 25  ; John  3 : 2).  and  not  simply  disciples 
of  James  or  members  of  his  congregation,  which  would  be  expressed  by  rives 
t u v curb  ’I aKwfiou.  See  Grimm,  l.  c. , p.  427. 


§ 35.  PETER  AND  PAUL  AT  ANTIOCH.  355 

partly  connected  with  this  manifestation  of  human  weak- 
ness.1 

The  sin  of  Peter  roused  the  fiery  temper  of  Paul,  and  called 
upon  him  a sharper  rebuke  than  he  had  received  from  his 
Master.  A mere  look  of  pity  from  Jesus  was  enough  to  call 
forth  bitter  tears  of  repentance.  Paul  was  not  Jesus.  He  may 
have  been  too  severe  in  the  manner  of  his  remonstrance,  but 
he  knew  Peter  better  than  we,  and  was  right  in  the  matter  of 
dispute,  and  after  all  more  moderate  than  some  of  the  great- 
est and  best  men  have  been  in  personal  controversy.  Forsaken 
by  the  prince  of  the  apostles  and  by  his  own  faithful  ally  in  the 
Gentile  mission,  he  felt  that  nothing  but  unflinching  courage 
could  save  the  sinking  ship  of  freedom.  A vital  principle  was 
at  stake,  and  the  Christian  standing  of  the  Gentile  converts  must 
be  maintained  at  all  hazards,  now  or  never,  if  the  world  was  to 
be  saved  and  Christianity  was  not  to  shrink  into  a narrow 
corner  as  a Jewish  sect.  Whatever  might  do  in  Jerusalem, 
wdiere  there  was  scarcely  a heathen  convert,  this  open  affront  to 
brethren  in  Christ  could  not  be  tolerated  for  a moment  at  Anti- 
och in  the  church  which  was  of  his  own  planting  and  full  of 
Hellenists  and  Gentiles.  A public  scandal  must  be  publicly 
corrected.  And  so  Paul  confronted  Peter  and  charged  him 
with  downright  hypocrisy  in  the  face  of  the  w'hole  congregation. 
He  exposed  his  misconduct  by  his  terse  reasoning,  to  which 
Peter  could  make  no  reply.2 * * 5  “ If  thou,”  he  said  to  him  in  sub- 
stance, “ who  art  a Jew  by  nationality  and  training,  art  eating 
with  the  Gentiles  in  disregard  of  the  ceremonial  prohibition, 

1 There  are  not  a few  examples  of  successful  intimidations  of  strong  and 

bold  men.  Luther  was  so  frightened  at  the  prospect  of  a split  of  the  holy 

Catholic  church,  in  an  interview  with  the  papal  legate,  Carl  von  Miltitz,  at 

Altenburg  in  January,  1519,  that  he  promised  to  write  and  did  write  a most 
humiliating  letter  of  submission  to  the  Pope,  and  a warning  to  the  German 
people  against  secession.  But  the  irrepressible  conflict  soon  broke  out  again 
at  the  Leipzig  disputation  in  June,  1519. 

5 Gal  2 : 14-21.  We  take  this  section  to  be  a brief  outline  of  Paul’s  address 
to  Peter  ; but  the  historical  narrative  imperceptibly  passes  into  doctrinal  re* 
flections  suggested  by  the  occasion  and  adapted  to  the  case  of  the  Galatians. 
In  the  third  chapter  it  naturally  expands  into  a direct  attack  on  the  Galatians. 


356 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


why  art  thou  now,  by  the  moral  force  of  thy  example  as  the 
chief  of  the  Twelve,  constraining  the  Gentile  converts  to  Judaize 
or  to  conform  to  the  ceremonial  restraints  of  the  elementary  reli- 
gion ? We  who  are  Jews  by  birth  and  not  gross  sinners  like 
the  heathen,  know  that  justification  comes  not  from  works  of 
the  law,  but  from  faith  in  Christ.  It  may  be  objected  that  by 
seeking  gratuitous  justification  instead  of  legal  justification,  we 
make  Christ  a promoter  of  sin.1  Away  with  this  monstrous 
and  blasphemous  conclusion ! On  the  contrary,  there  is  sin  in 
returning  to  the  law  for  justification  after  we  have  abandoned 
it  for  faith  in  Christ.  I myself  stand  convicted  of  transgression 
if  I build  up  again  (as  thou  doest  now)  the  very  law  which  I pulled 
down  (as  thou  didst  before),  and  thus  condemn  my  former  con- 
duct. For  the  law  itself  taught  me  to  exchange  it  for  Christ,  to 
whom  it  points  as  its  end.  Through  the  Mosaic  law  as  a tutor 
leading  me  beyond  itself  to  freedom  in  Christ,  I died  to  the  Mosaic 
law  in  order  that  I might  live  a new  life  of  obedience  and  grati- 
tude to  God.  I have  been  crucified  with  Christ,  and  it  is  no  longer 
my  old  self  that  lives,  but  it  is  Christ  that  lives  in  me ; and  the 
new  life  of  Christ  which  I now  live  in  this  body  after  my  con- 
version, I live  in  the  faith  of  the  Son  of  God  who  loved  me  and 
gave  himself  for  me.  I do  not  frustrate  the  grace  of  God  ; for 
if  the  observance  of  the  law  of  Moses  or  any  other  human  work 
could  justify  and  save,  there  was  no  good  cause  of  Christ’s  death  ; 
his  atoning  sacrifice  on  the  cross  was  needless  and  fruitless.” 

From  such  a conclusion  Peter’s  soul  shrank  back  in  horror. 
He  never  dreamed  of  denying  the  necessity  and  efficacy  of  the 
death  of  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins.  He  and  Barnabas 
stood  between  two  fires  on  that  trying  occasion.  As  Jews  they 
seemed  to  be  bound  by  the  restrictions  of  the  Jerusalem  com- 
promise on  which  the  messengers  of  James  insisted ; but  by 
trying  to  please  the  Jews  they  offended  the  Gentiles,  and  by 
going  back  to  Jewish  exclusiveness  they  did  violence  to  their 

1 Paul  draws,  in  the  form  of  a question,  a false  conclusion  of  the  J udaizing 
opponents  from  correct  premises  of  his  own,  and  rejects  the  conclusion  with 
his  usual  formula  of  abhorrence,  /*!)  yevoiro,  as  in  Rom.  G : 2. 


§ 35.  PETER  AND  PAUL  AT  ANTIOCH. 


357 


better  convictions,  and  felt  condemned  by  their  own  conscience.' 
They  no  doubt  returned  to  their  more  liberal  practice. 

The  alienation  of  the  apostles  was  merely  temporary.  They 
were  too  noble  and  too  holy  to  entertain  resentment.  Paul 
makes  honorable  mention  afterwards  of  Peter  and  Barnabas, 
and  also  of  Mark,  who  was  a connecting  link  between  the  three.3 
Peter  in  his  Epistles  endorses  the  teaching  of  the  “ beloved 
brother  Paul,”  and  commends  the  wisdom  of  his  Epistles,  in 
one  of  which  his  own  conduct  is  so  severely  rebuked,  but  sig- 
nificantly adds  that  there  are  some  “ things  in  them  hard  to 
be  understood,  which  the  ignorant  and  unsteadfast  wrest,  as  they 
do  also  the  other  Scriptures,  to  their  own  destruction.”  3 

The  scene  of  Antioch  belongs  to  these  things  which  have  been 
often  misunderstood  and  perverted  by  prejudice  and  ignorance 
in  the  interest  both  of  heresy  and  orthodoxy.  The  memory  of 
it  was  perpetuated  by  the  tradition  which  divided  the  church  at 
Antioch  into  two  parishes  with  two  bishops,  Evodius  and  Igna- 
tius, the  one  instituted  by  Peter,  the  other  by  Paul.  Celsus, 
Porphyry,  and  modern  enemies  of  Christianity  have  used  it  as  an 
argument  against  the  moral  character  and  inspiration  of  the 
apostles.  The  conduct  of  Paul  left  a feeling  of  intense  bitter- 
ness and  resentment  in  the  Jewish  party  which  manifested  it- 
self even  a hundred  years  later  in  a violent  attack  of  the  pseudo- 
Clementine  Homilies  and  Recognitions  upon  Paul,  under  the 
disguise  of  Simon  Magus.  The  conduct  of  both  apostles  was  so 
unaccountable  to  Catholic  taste  that  some  of  the  fathers  substi- 
tuted an  unknown  Cephas  for  Peter ; 4 while  others  resolved 
the  scene  into  a hypocritical  farce  gotten  up  by  the  apostles 
themselves  for  dramatic  effect  upon  the  ignorant  congregation.6 

1 Gal.  2 : 11,  Peter  stood  self-condemned  and  condemned  by  the  Gentiles, 
KaTtyyua/jLevos  fy,  not  “blameworthy,”  or  “ was  to  be  blamed”  (E.  V.). 

2 Comp.  1 Cor.  9 : 5,  6 ; 15  : 5 ; Col.  4:10;  Philem.  24 ; 2 Tim.  4 : 11. 

3 1 Pet.  5 : 12  ; 2 Pet.  3 : 15,  16. 

4 So  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  other  fathers,  also  the  Jesuit  Harduin. 

5 This  monstrous  perversion  of  Scripture  was  advocated  even  by  such  fathers 
as  Origen,  Jerome,  and  Chrysostom.  It  gave  rise  to  a controversy  between 
Jerome  and  Augustin,  who  from  a superior  moral  sense  protested  against  it, 
and  prevailed. 


358 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


The  truth  of  hi  story  requires  us  to  sacrifice  the  orthodox  fio 
tion  of  moral  perfection  in  the  apostolic  church.  But  we  gain 
more  than  we  lose.  The  apostles  themselves  never  claimed,  but 
expressly  disowned  such  perfection.1  They  carried  the  heavenly 
treasure  in  earthen  vessels,  and  thus  brought  it  nearer  to  us.  The 
infirmities  of  holy  men  are  frankly  revealed  in  the  Bible  for  our 
encouragement  as  well  as  for  our  humiliation.  The  bold  attack 
of  Paul  teaches  the  right  and  duty  of  protest  even  against  the 
highest  ecclesiastical  authority,  when  Christian  truth  and  prin- 
ciple are  endangered ; the  quiet  submission  of  Peter  commends 
him  to  our  esteem  for  his  humility  and  meekness  in  proportion 
to  his  high  standing  as  the  chief  among  the  pillar- apostles  ; the 
conduct  of  both  explodes  the  Bomish  fiction  of  papal  supremacy 
and  infallibility ; and  the  whole  scene  typically  foreshadows  the 
grand  historical  conflict  between  Petrine  Catholicism  and  Paul- 
ine Protestantism,  which,  we  trust,  will  end  at  last  in  a grand 
Johannean  reconciliation. 

Peter  and  Paul,  as  far  as  we  know,  never  met  afterwards  till 
they  both  shed  their  blood  for  the  testimony  of  Jesus  in  the 
capital  of  the  world. 

The  fearless  remonstrance  of  Paul  had  probably  a moderating 
effect  upon  James  and  his  elders,  but  did  not  alter  their  practice 
in  Jerusalem.2  Still  less  did  it  silence  the  extreme  Judaizing 
faction ; on  the  contrary,  it  enraged  them.  They  were  defeated, 
but  not  convinced,  and  fought  again  with  greater  bitterness  than 
ever.  They  organized  a countermission,  and  followed  Paul  in- 
to almost  every  field  of  his  labor,  especially  to  Corinth  and 
Galatia.  They  were  a thorn,  if  not  the  thorn,  in  his  flesh.  He 
has  them  in  view  in  all  his  Epistles  except  those  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians  and  to  Philemon.  We  cannot  understand  his  Epistles 
in  their  proper  historical  sense  without  this  fact.  The  false 
apostles  were  perhaps  those  very  Pharisees  who  caused  the  origi- 
nal trouble,  at  all  events  men  of  like  spirit.  They  boasted  of 
their  personal  acquaintance  with  the  Lord  in  the  days  of  his 

1 Comp.  2 Cor.  4:  7;  PhiL  3:12;  James  3:  2;  1 John  1 : 8 ; 2:2. 

3 Comp.  Acts  21  : 17-20. 


§ 35.  PETER  AND  PAUL  AT  ANTIOCH.  350 

flesh,  and  with  the  primitive  apostles ; hence  Paul  calls  these 
“ false  apostles  ” sarcastically  “ super-eminent  ” or  “ over-extra- 
apostles.”  1 They  attacked  his  apostolate  as  irregular  and  spu- 
rious, and  his  gospel  as  radical  and  revolutionary.  They  boldly 
told  his  Gentile  converts  that  they  must  submit  to  circumcision 
and  keep  the  ceremonial  law ; in  other  words,  that  they  must  be 
Jews  as  well  as  Christians  in  order  to  insure  salvation,  or  at  all 
events  to  occupy  a position  of  pre-eminence  over  and  above 
mere  proselytes  of  the  gate  in  the  outer  court.  They  appealed, 
without  foundation,  to  J ames  and  Peter,  and  to  Christ  himself, 
and  abused  their  name  and  authority  for  their  narrow  sectarian 
purposes,  just  as  the  Bible  itself  is  made  responsible  for  all 
sorts  of  heresies  and  vagaries.  They  seduced  many  of  the  im- 
pulsive and  changeable  Galatians,  who  had  all  the  characteris- 
tics of  the  Keltic  race.  They  split  the  congregation  in  Corinth 
into  several  parties  and  caused  the  apostle  the  deepest  anxiety. 
In  Colossae,  and  the  churches  of  Phrygia  and  Asia,  legalism 
assumed  the  milder  form  of  Essenic  mysticism  and  asceticism. 
In  the  Homan  church  the  legalists  were  weak  brethren  rather 
than  false  brethren,  and  no  personal  enemies  of  Paul,  who 
treats  them  much  more  mildly  than  the  Galatian  errorists. 

This  bigoted  and  most  persistent  Judaizing  reaction  was 
overruled  for  good.  It  drew  out  from  the  master  mind  of  Paul 
the  most  complete  and  most  profound  vindication  and  exposition 
of  the  doctrines  of  sin  and  grace.  Without  the  intrigues  and 
machinations  of  these  legalists  and  ritualists  we  should  not  have 
the  invaluable  Epistles  to  the  Galatians,  Corinthians,  and  Ho- 
mans. Where  error  abounded,  truth  has  still  more  abounded. 

At  last  the  victory  was  won.  The  terrible  persecution  under 
Nero,  and  the  still  more  terrible  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  buried 
the  circumcision  controversy  in  the  Christian  church.  The  cere- 
monial law,  which  before  Christ  was  “ alive  but  not  life-giving,” 

1 The  E.  V.  translates  v-irepKlav  inr6<rTo\oi,  2 Cor.  11:5,  “ the  very  chief est 
apostles,”  Plumptre  better,  ‘‘those  apostles-extraordinary.”  They  are  identi- 
cal with  the  ipeuSairoa-roAoi,  ver.  13,  and  not  with  the  pillar -apostles  of  the  cir- 
cumcision, Gal.  2:9;  see  above,  p.  334,  note  1. 


360 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


and  which  from  Christ  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  was 
“ dying  but  not  deadly,”  became  after  that  destruction  “ dead 
and  deadly.”  1 The  Judaizing  heresy  was  indeed  continued 
outside  of  the  Catholic  church  by  the  sect  of  the  Ebionites  dur- 
ing the  second  century ; and  in  the  church  itself  the  spirit  of 
formalism  and  bigotry  assumed  new  shapes  by  substituting 
Christian  rites  and  ceremonies  for  the  typical  shadows  of  the 
Mosaic  dispensation.  But  whenever  and  wherever  this  tendency 
manifests  itself  we  have  the  best  antidote  in  the  Epistles  of 
Paul. 


§ 36.  Christianity  in  Rome. 

I.  On  the  general,  social,  and  moral  condition  of  Rome  under  the  Em- 

perors : 

Ludwig  Friedlandeb  : Sittengeschichte  Roms.  Leipzig,  1862,  5th 
ed.  revised  and  enlarged,  1881,  3 vols. 

Rod.  Lanciani  : Ancient  Rome  in  the  Light  of  Recent  Discoveries . 
Boston,  1889  (with  100  illustrations). 

II.  On  the  Jews  in  Rome  and  the  allusions  of  Roman  writers  to  them  : 

Renan  : Les  Apotres , 287-293  ; Mebivale  : History  of  the  Romans , 
VI.,  203  sqq. ; Friedlandeb  : l.  c.  III.,  505  sqq. ; Hausrath  : Neu- 
testamentliche  Zeitgeschichte,  III.,  383-392  (2ded.) ; Schureb:  Lehrbucli 
der  Neutestamentlichen  Zeitgeschichte , pp.  624  sq. , and  Die  Gemeinde- 
verfassung  der  Juden  in  Rom  in  der  Kaiser zeit,  Leipz.,  1879 ; Huide- 
kopeb  : Judaism  at  Romef  1876.  Also  John  Gill  : Notices  of  the  Jews 
and  their  Country  by  the  Classic  Writers  of  Antiquity.  2d  ed.  Lon- 
don, 1872.  On  Jewish  Roman  inscriptions  see  Garrucci  (several 
articles  in  Italian  since  1862),  von  Engestrom  (in  a Swedish  work, 
Upsala,  1876),  and  Schurer  (1879). 

III.  On  the  Christian  Congregation  in  Rome : 

The  Histories  of  the  Apostolic  Age  (see  pp.  189  sqq.) ; the  Intro- 
ductions to  the  Commentaries  on  Romans  (mentioned  p.  281),  and 
a number  of  critical  essays  on  the  origin  and  composition  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  and  the  aim  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  by 
Baur  ( Ueber  ZwecJc  und  Veranlassung  des  Romerbriefs , 1836;  repro- 
duced in  his  Pauh  I.,  346  sqq.,  Engl,  transl.),  Beyschlag  ( Das 
geschichtliche  Problem  des  Romerbriefs  in  the  “ Studien  und  Kritiken  ” 
for  1867),  Hilgenfeld  ( Einleitung  in  das  N.  T.,  1875,  pp.  302  sqq.), 
C.  Weizsacker  ( Ueber  die  diteste  romische  Christengemeinde,  1876, 
and  his  Apost.  Zeitalter,  1886,  pp.  415-467). 

1 Augustin  thus  distinguishes  three  periods  in  the  Mosaic  law:  1,  lex  viva , 

sed  non  vivijica  ; 2,  l.  moribunda}  sed  non  mortifera;  3,  l.  mortua  et  mortifera. 


§ 36.  CHRISTIANITY  IN  ROME. 


361 


W.  Mangold  : Der  Romerbrief  und  seine  gesch.  Vorausseizungen, 
Marburg,  1884.  Defends  the  Jewish  origin  and  character  of  the 
Roman  church  (against  Weizsacker). 

Rud.  Seyerlen  : Entstehung  und  erste  Schicksale  der  Christen - 
gemeinde  in  Rom.  Tubingen,  1874. 

Adolf  Harnack  : Christianity  and  Christians  at  the  Court  of  the 
Roman  Emperors  before  the  Time  of  Constantine.  In  the  “ Princeton 
Review,”  N.  York,  1878,  pp.  239-280. 

J.  Spencer  Northcote  and  W.  R.  Brownlow  (R.  C.) : Roma 
Sotteiranea,  new  ed.,  London,  1879,  vol.  I.,  pp.  78-91.  Based  upon 
Caval.  De  Rossi’s  large  Italian  work  under  the  same  title  (Roma, 
1864-1877,  in  three  vols.  fol.).  Both  important  for  the  remains  of 
early  Roman  Christianity  in  the  Catacombs. 

Formby  : Ancient  Rome  and  its  Connect,  with  the  Chr.  Rel.  Lond.,  1880. 

Keim  : Rom.  u.  das  Christenthum.  Berlin,  1881. 


From  “Roma  Sotterranea,”  by  Northcote  and  Brownlow. 


The  City  of  Home. 

The  city  of  Rome  was  to  the  Roman  empire  what  Paris  is  to 
France,  what  London  to  Great  Britain : the  ruling  head  and 


302 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


the  beating  heart.  It  had  even  a more  cosmopolitan  character 
than  these  modern  cities.  It  was  the  world  in  miniature,  “ orbis 
in  urbe .”  Rome  had  conquered  nearly  all  the  nationalities  of 
the  then  civilized  world,  and  drew  its  population  from  the  East 
and  from  the  West,  from  the  North  and  from  the  South.  All 
languages,  religions,  and  customs  of  the  conquered  provinces 
found  a home  there.  Half  the  inhabitants  spoke  Greek,  and 
the  natives  complained  of  the  preponderance  of  this  foreign 
tongue  which,  since  Alexander’s  conquest,  had  become  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Orient  and  of  the  civilized  world.1  The  palace  of 
the  emperor  was  the  chief  centre  of  Oriental  and  Greek  life. 
Large  numbers  of  the  foreigners  were  freedmen,  who  generally 
took  the  family  name  of  their  masters.  Many  of  them  became 
very  wealthy,  even  millionnaires.  The  rich  freedman  was  in 
that  age  the  type  of  the  vulgar,  impudent,  bragging  upstart. 
According  to  Tacitus,  “ all  things  vile  and  shameful  ” were  sure 
to  flow  from  all  quarters  of  the  empire  into  Rome  as  a common 
sewer.  But  the  same  is  true  of  the  best  elements : the  richest 
products  of  nature,  the  rarest  treasures  of  art,  were  collected 
there  ; the  enterprising  and  ambitious  youths,  the  men  of  genius, 
learning,  and  every  useful  craft  found  in  Rome  the  widest  field 
and  the  richest  reward  for  their  talents. 

With  Augustus  began  the  period  of  expensive  building.  In 
his  long  reign  of  peace  and  prosperity  he  changed  the  city  of 
bricks  into  a city  of  marble.  It  extended  in  narrow  and  irre- 
gular streets  on  both  banks  of  the  Tiber,  covered  the  now  deso- 
late and  feverish  Campagna  to  the  base  of  the  Albanian  hills, 
and  stretched  its  arms  by  land  and  by  sea  to  the  ends  of  the 
earth.  It  was  then  (as  in  its  ruins  it  is  even  now)  the  most  in- 
structive and  interesting  city  in  the  world.  Poets,  orators,  and 
historians  were  lavish  in  the  praises  of  the  urbs  ceterna , 

“ qua  nihil  possis  visere  majus .”  * 

1 Friedlander,  I.  372  sqq. 

2 See  some  of  these  eulogistic  descriptions  in  Friedlander,  I.  9,  who  says  that 
the  elements  which  produced  this  overwhelming  impression  were  “ the  enor- 
mous, ever  changing  turmoil  of  a population  from  all  lands,  the  confusing  and 


§ 30.  CHRISTIANITY  IN  ROME. 


3G3 


The  estimates  of  the  population  of  imperial  Rome  are  guess- 
work, and  vary  from  one  to  four  millions.  But  in  all  proba- 
bility it  amounted  under  Augustus  to  more  than  a million,  and 
increased  rapidly  under  the  following  emperors  till  it  received 
a check  by  the  fearful  epidemic  of  79,  which  for  many  days  de- 
manded ten  thousand  victims  a day.1  Afterwards  the  city  grew 
again  and  reached  the  height  of  its  splendor  under  Hadrian  and 
the  Antonines.3 


The  Jews  in  Rome. 

The  number  of  Jews  in  Rome  during  the  apostolic  age  is 
estimated  at  twenty  or  thirty  thousand  souls.3  They  all  spoke 
Hellenistic  Greek  with  a strong  Hebrew  accent.  They  had,  as 
far  as  we  know,  seven  synagogues  and  three  cemeteries,  with 
Greek  and  a few  Latin  inscriptions,  sometimes  with  Greek 
words  in  Latin  letters,  or  Latin  words  with  Greek  letters.4  They 
inhabited  the  fourteenth  region,  beyond  the  Tiber  (Trastevere), 

intoxicating  commotion  of  a truly  cosmopolitan  intercourse,  the  number  and 
magnificence  of  public  parks  and  buildings,  and  the  immeasurable  extent  of 
the  city.*’  Ox  the  Campagna  he  says,  p.  10  : “ Wo  sichjeizt  ei~ \e  ruinener- 
fullte  Einode  gegen  das  Albanesergebirge  hinerstreckt,  uber  der  Fieberluft 
briitet,  war  damals  eine  durchaus  gesunde,  uberall  angebaute , von  Leben  wim- 
melden  Strassen  durchschnittene  Ebene .”  See  Strabo,  v.  3,  12. 

1 Friedlander,  I.  54  sqq.,  by  a combination  of  certain  data,  comes  to  the 
conclusion  that  Rome  numbered  under  Augustus  (a.  u.  749)  G68,600  people, 
exclusive  of  slaves,  and  70  or  80  years  later  from  one  and  a half  to  two 
millions. 

2 Friedlander,  I.  11  : “ In  deni  lialben  Jahrhundert  von  Vespasian  bis  Hadrian 
erreichte  Rom  seinen  liocTisten  Glanz,  wenn  aucli  unter  den  Antoninen  und 
spater  noch  vieles  zu  seiner  Verschbnervng  gescliehen  ist" 

3 By  Renan,  V Antechrist,  p.  7;  Friedlander,  I.  310,  372;  and  Harnack, 
l.  c.,  p.  253.  But  Hausrath,  l.  c .,  III.  384,  assumes  40,000  Jews  in  Rome 
under  Augustus,  60,000  under  Tiberius.  We  know  from  Josephus  that  8,000 
Roman  Jews  accompanied  a deputation  of  King  Herod  to  Augustus  (Ant. 
XVII.  11,  1),  and  that  4,000  Jews  were  banished  by  Tiberius  to  the  mines  of 
Sardinia  (XVIII.  3,  5 ; comp.  Tacitus,  Ann.  II.  85).  But  these  data  do  not 
justify  a very  definite  calculation. 

4 Friedlander,  III.  510  : “ Die  Inschriften  sind  uberwiegend  griechisch , alter - 
dings  zum  Tlieil  bis  zur  Unverstandlichkeit  jargonartig  ; daneben  finden  sick 
lateinisrbe , aber  keine  hebrdischen .”  See  also  Garrucci,  Cimiterio  in  vigna 
Rondanini , and  the  inscriptions  (mostly  Greek,  some  Latin)  copied  and  pub- 
lished by  Schiirer,  Die  Gcmeindeverfassnng  der  Juden , etc.,  pp.  33  sqq. 


364 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


at  the  base  of  the  Janiculum,  probably  also  the  island  of  the 
Tiber,  and  part  of  the  left  bank  towards  the  Circus  Maximus 
and  the  Palatine  hill,  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  present  Ghetto 
or  Jewry.  They  were  mostly  descendants  of  slaves  and  captives 
of  Pompey,  Cassius,  and  Antony.  They  dealt  then,  as  now, 
in  old  clothing  and  broken  ware,  or  rose  from  poverty  to  wealth 
and  prominence  as  bankers,  physicians,  astrologers,  and  fortune- 
tellers. Not  a few  found  their  way  to  the  court.  Alityrus,  a 
Jewish  actor,  enjoyed  the  highest  favor  of  Nero.  Thallus,  a 
Samaritan  and  freedman  of  Tiberius,  was  able  to  lend  a million 
denarii  to  the  Jewish  king,  Herod  Agrippa.1  The  relations  be- 
tween the  Herods  and  the  Julian  and  Claudian  emperors  were 
very  intimate. 

The  strange  manners  and  institutions  of  the  Jews,  as  cir- 
cumcision, Sabbath  observance,  abstinence  from  pork  and  meat 
sacrificed  to  the  gods  whom  they  abhorred  as  evil  spirits,  ex- 
cited the  mingled  amazement,  contempt,  and  ridicule  of  the 
Roman  historians  and  satirists.  Whatever  was  sacred  to  the 
heathen  was  profane  to  the  Jews.2  They  were  regarded  as  ene- 
mies of  the  human  race.  But  this,  after  all,  was  a superficial 
judgment.  The  Jews  had  also  their  friends.  Their  indomita- 
ble industry  and  persistency,  their  sobriety,  earnestness,  fidelity, 
and  benevolence,  their  strict  obedience  to  law,  their  disregard 
of  death  in  war,  their  unshaken  trust  in  God,  their  hope  of  a 
glorious  future  of  humanity,  the  simplicity  and  purity  of  their 
worship,  the  sublimity  and  majesty  of  the  idea  of  one  omnipo- 
tent, holy,  and  merciful  God,  made  a deep  impression  upon 
thoughtful  and  serious  persons,  and  especially  upon  females  (who 
escaped  the  odium  of  circumcision).  Hence  the  large  number 
of  proselytes  in  Rome  and  elsewhere.  Horace,  Persius,  and 
Juvenal,  as  well  as  Josephus,  testify  that  many  Romans  abstain- 
ed from  all  business  on  the  Sabbath,  fasted  and  prayed,  burned 

1 Josephus,  Ant.  XVIII.  6,  4.  Comp.  Hamack,  l.  c.,  p.  254. 

2 Tacitus,  Hist.  V.  4 : “ Prof  ana  illic  omnia  qua  apud  nos  sacra  ; rursum 
concessa  apud  illos  qua  nobis  incesta .”  Comp,  his  whole  description  of  the 
Jews,  which  is  a strange  compound  of  truth  and  falsehood. 


§ 36.  CHRISTIANITY  IN  ROME. 


365 


lamps,  studied  the  Mosaic  law,  and  sent  tribute  to  the  temple  of 
Jerusalem.  Even  the  Empress  Poppaea  was  inclined  to  Juda- 
ism after  her  own  fashion,  and  showed  great  favor  to  Josephus, 
who  calls  her  “ devout  ” or  “ God-fearing  ” (though  she  was  a 
cruel  and  shameless  woman).1  Seneca,  who  detested  the  Jews 
(calling  them  sceleratissima  gens),  was  constrained  to  say  that 
this  conquered  race  gave  laws  to  their  conquerors.3 

The  Jews  were  twice  expelled  from  Home  under  Tiberius  and 
Claudius,  but  soon  returned  to  their  transtiberine  quarter,  and 
continued  to  enjoy  the  privileges  of  a religio  licita,  which  were 
granted  to  them  by  heathen  emperors,  but  were  afterwards  de- 
nied them  by  Christian  popes.8 

1 “ Poppaea  Sabina,  the  wife  of  Otho,  was  the  fairest  woman  of  her  time,  and 
with  the  charms  of  beauty  she  combined  the  address  of  an  accomplished  in- 
triguer. Among  the  dissolute  women  of  imperial  Rome  she  stands  preemi- 
nent. Originally  united  to  Rufius  Crispinus,  she  allowed  herself  to  be  seduced 
by  Otho,  and  obtained  a divorce  in  order  to  marry  him.  Introduced  by  this 
new  connection  to  the  intimacy  of  Nero,  she  soon  aimed  at  a higher  elevation. 
But  her  husband  was  jealous  and  vigilant,  and  she  herself  knew  how  to  allure 
the  young  emperor  by  alternate  advances  and  retreats,  till,  in  the  violence  of  his 
passion,  he  put  his  friend  out  of  the  way  by  dismissing  him  to  the  government 
of  Lusitania.  Poppaea  suffered  Otho  to  depart  without  a sigh.  She  profited 
by  his  absence  to  make  herself  more  than  ever  indispensable  to  her  paramour, 
and  aimed,  with  little  disguise,  at  releasing  herself  from  her  union  and  sup- 
planting Octavia,  by  divorce  or  even  death.”  Merivale,  Hist,  of  the  Romans, 
VI.  97.  Nero  accidentally  kicked  Poppaea  to  death  when  in  a state  of  pregnan- 
cy (65),  and  pronounced  her  eulogy  from  the  rostrum.  The  senate  decreed  di- 
vine honors  to  her.  Comp.  Tac.  Ann.  XIII.  45,  46  ; XVI.  6;  Suet.,  Nero,  35. 

8 u Victi  victonbus  leges  dederunt Quoted  by  Augustin  {De  Civit.  Dei , 
VI.  11)  from  a lost  work,  De  Super stitionibus.  This  word  received  a singular 
illustration  a few  years  after  Seneca’s  death,  when  Berenice,  the  daughter  of 
King  Agrippa,  who  had  heard  the  story  of  Paul’s  conversion  at  Caesarea  (Acts 
25  : 13,  23),  became  the  acknowledged  mistress  first  of  Vespasianus  and  then 
of  his  son  Titus,  and  presided  in  the  palace  of  the  Caesars.  Titus  promised 
to  marry  her,  but  was  obliged,  by  the  pressure  of  public  opinion,  to  dismiss 
the  incestuous  adulteress.  “ Dimisit  invitus  invitam .”  Sueton.  Tit.,  c.  7; 
Tacit.  Hist.,  II.  81. 

* The  history  of  the  Roman  Ghetto  (the  word  is  derived  from  ccedo,  to 
cut  down,  comp.  Isa.  10  : 33  ; 14  : 12  ; 15  : 2;  Jer.  48  : 25,  27,  etc.,  presents  a 
curious  and  sad  chapter  in  the  annals  of  the  papacy.  The  fanatical  Pope  Paul 
IV.  (1555-59)  caused  it  to  be  walled  in  and  shut  out  from  all  intercourse  with 
the  Christian  world,  declaring  in  the  bull  Cum  nimis  : It  is  most  absurd  and 

unsuitable  that  the  Jews,  whose  own  crime  has  plunged  them  into  everlasting 
slavery,  under  the  plea  that  Christian  magnanimity  allows  them,  should  pre- 


366 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


When  Paul  arrived  in  Home  he  invited  the  rulers  of  the  syna* 
gogues  to  a conference,  that  he  might  show  them  his  good  will 
and  give  them  the  first  offer  of  the  gospel,  but  they  replied  to 
his  explanations  with  shrewd  reservation,  and  affected  to  know 
nothing  of  Christianity,  except  that  it  was  a sect  everywhere 
spoken  against.  Their  best  policy  was  evidently  to  ignore  it  as 
much  as  possible.  Yet  a large  number  came  to  hear  the  apostle 
on  an  appointed  day,  and  some  believed,  while  the  majority,  as 
usual,  rejected  his  testimony.1 

Christianity  in  Rome. 

From  this  peculiar  people  came  the  first  converts  to  a religion 
which  proved  more  than  a match  for  the  power  of  Rome.  The 
Jews  were  only  an  army  of  defense,  the  Christians  an  army  of 
conquest,  though  under  the  despised  banner  of  the  cross. 

The  precise  origin  of  the  church  of  Rome  is  involved  in  im- 
penetrable mystery.  W e are  informed  of  the  beginnings  of  the 
church  of  Jerusalem  and  most  of  the  churches  of  Paul,  but  we 
do  not  know  who  first  preached  the  gospel  at  Rome.  Chris- 
tianity with  its  missionary  enthusiasm  for  the  conversion  of  the 
world  must  have  found  a home  in  the  capital  of  the  world  at  a 
very  early  day,  before  the  apostles  left  Palestine.  The  congre- 
gation at  Antioch  grew  up  from  emigrant  and  fugitive  disciples 
of  J erusalem  before  it  was  consolidated  and  fully  organized  by 
Barnabas  and  Paul. 

It  is  not  impossible,  though  by  no  means  demonstrable,  that 

sume  to  dwell  and  mix  with  Christians,  not  bearing  any  mark  of  distinction, 
and  should  have  Christian  servants,  yea  even  buy  houses.”  Sixtus  Y.  treated 
the  Jews  kindly  on  the  plea  that  they  were  “ the  family  from  which  Christ 
came  ; ” but  his  successors,  Clement  VIII.,  Clement  XI.,  and  Innocent  XIII., 
forbade  them  all  trade  except  that  in  old  clothes,  rags,  and  iron.  Gregory 
XIII.  (1572— ’85),  who  rejoiced  over  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew,  forced 
the  Jews  to  bear  a sermon  every  week,  and  on  every  Sabbath  police  agents 
were  sent  to  the  Ghetto  to  drive  men,  women,  and  children  into  the  church 
with  scourges,  and  to  lash  them  if  they  paid  no  attention ! This  custom  was  only 
abolished  by  Pius  IX.,  who  revoked  all  the  oppressive  laws  against  the  Jews. 
For  this  and  other  interesting  information  about  the  Ghetto  see  Augustus  J. 
C.  Hare,  Walks  in  Borne,  1873,  165  sqq.,  and  a pamphlet  of  Dr.  Philip,  a 
Protestant  missionary  among  the  Jews  in  Rome,  On  the  Ghetto , Rome,  1874. 

1 Acts  28  : 17-29. 


§ 36.  CHRISTIANITY  IN  ROME. 


307 


the  first  tidings  of  the  gospel  were  brought  to  Rome  soon  after 
the  birthday  of  the  church  by  witnesses  of  the  pentecostal  mira- 
cle in  Jerusalem,  among  whom  were  “ sojourners  from  Rome, 
both  Jews  and  proselytes.”  1 In  this  case  Peter,  the  preacher 
of  the  pentecostal  sermon,  may  be  said  to  have  had  an  indirect 
agency  in  the  founding  of  the  church  of  Rome,  which  claims 
him  as  the  rock  on  which  it  is  built,  although  the  tradition  of 
his  early  visit  (42)  and  twenty  or  twenty-five  years’  residence 
there  is  a long  exploded  fable.2  Paul  greets  among  the  brethren 
in  Rome  some  kinsmen  who  had  been  converted  before  him, 
i.e.,  before  37.s  Several  names  in  the  list  of  Roman  brethren 
to  whom  he  sends  greetings  are  found  in  the  Jewish  cemetery 
on  the  Appian  Way  among  the  freedmen  of  the  Empress  Livia. 
Christians  from  Palestine,  Syria,  Asia  Minor,  and  Greece  must 
have  come  to  the  capital  for  various  reasons,  either  as  visitors 
or  settlers. 


The  Edict  of  Claudius. 

The  first  historic  trace  of  Christianity  in  Rome  we  have  in  a 
notice  of  the  heathen  historian  Suetonius,  confirmed  by  Luke, 
that  Claudius,  about  a.d.  52,  banished  the  Jews  from  Rome  be- 
cause of  their  insurrectionary  disposition  and  commotion  under 
the  instigation  of  “ Clirestus  ” (misspelt  for  “ Christus  ”).  4 

1 Acts  2:  10:  oi  iTri^Tj^ovvres  'Pwfxaloi,  ’I ou&atoi  re  Kal  irpo(r'fi\vToi.  Sojourn- 
ers are  strangers  (comp.  17 : 21,  oi  i-iritirifiovvTes  £e; voi ),  as  distinct  from  inhab- 
itants ( KaroiKouyTcs,  7 : 48 ; 9 : 22 ; Luke  13  : 4).  Among  the  Hellenistic  Jews 
in  Jerusalem  who  disputed  with  Stephen  were  Libertini,  i.e. , emancipated 
Roman  Jews,  descendants  of  those  whom  Pompey  had  carried  captive  to 
Rome,  Acts  6:9. 

* Given  up  even  by  Roman  Catholic  historians  in  Germany,  but  still  confi- 
dently reasserted  by  Drs.  Northcote  and  Brownlow,  l.  c.  I.,  p.  79,  who  naively 
state  that  Peter  went  to  Rome  with  Cornelius  and  the  Italian  band  in  42. 
Comp,  on  this  subject  § 26,  pp.  254  sqq. 

3 Rom.  16  : 7,  “ Salute  Andronicus  and  Junias  (or  Junia),  my  kinsmen,  and 
my  fellow-prisoners  who  . . . have  been  in  Christ  before  me.”  If  Junias  is 
masculine,  it  must  be  a contraction  from  Junianus,  as  Lucas  from  Lucanus. 
But  Chrysostom,  Grotius,  Reiche,  and  others  take  it  as  a female,  either  the 
wife  or  sister  of  Andronicus. 

* Sueton.,  Claud.,  c.  25:  “ Judceos  impulsore  Chresto  assidue  tumultuantes 
Roma  expulit .”  The  Romans  often  confounded  Christus  (the  Anointed)  and 


368 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


This  commotion  in  all  probability  refers  to  Messianic  contro 
versies  between  Jews  and  Christians  who  were  not  yet  clearly 
distinguished  at  that  time.  The  preaching  of  Christ,  the  true 
King  of  Israel,  would  naturally  produce  a great  commotion 
among  the  Jews,  as  it  did  at  Antioch,  in  Pisidia,  in  Lystra, 
Thessalonica,  and  Bercea ; and  the  ignorant  heathen  magistrates 
would  as  naturally  infer  that  Christ  was  a political  pretender 
and  aspirant  to  an  earthly  throne.  The  Jews  who  rejected  the 
true  Messiah  looked  all  the  more  eagerly  for  an  imaginary 
Messiah  that  would  break  the  yoke  of  Borne  and  restore  the 
theocracy  of  David  in  Jerusalem.  Their  carnal  millennarianism 
affected  even  some  Christians,  and  Paul  found  it  necessary  to 
warn  them  against  rebellion  and  revolution.  Among  those  ex- 
pelled by  the  edict  of  Claudius  were  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  the 


Chrestus  (from  xp1 1<rr6s,  useful , good),  and  called  the  Christians  xpV<rrtavo(, 
Chrestiani.  Compare  the  French  form  chretien.  Justin  Martyr  uses  this 
etymological  error  as  an  argument  against  the  persecution  of  the  Christians 
for  the  sake  of  their  name.  Apol.  I.,  c.  4 (I.  p.  10,  ed.  Otto):  Xpianavol  chat 
tcarriyopovne&a.  rb  Sb  xpvo’rbv  fuaeioftcu  ov  bUaiov.  He  knew,  however,  the  true 
origin  of  the  name  of  Christ,  I.  c.  12  : ’I tjitovs  Xptards,  a<p'  ou  koI  rb  Xpianavol 
brovo/xdfc (t&cu  laxma^v.  Tertullian  says  that  the  name  Christus  was  almost 
invariably  mispronounced  Chrestus  by  the  heathen.  Apol.,  c.  3;  Ad  Nat.,  I. 
3.  This  mistake  continued  to  be  made  down  to  the  fourth  century,  Lactan- 
tius,  lnstit.  Div.,  IV.  7,  and  is  found  also  in  Latin  inscriptions,  llenan 
derives  the  name  Christianus  from  the  Latin  (like  Uerodiani , Matt.  22 : 16, 
Pompejani , Ccesareani),  as  the  derivation  from  the  Greek  would  require 
Xplareios  ( Les  dpotres , p.  234).  Lightfoot  denies  this,  and  refers  to  'Zapliav6s, 
Tpa\\iav6s  ( Philippian s,  p.  16,  note  1 ) ; but  Renan  would  regard  these  nouns 
as  Latinisms  like  ’A<r iav6s  (Acts  20 : 4,  Strabo,  etc. ).  Antioch,  where  the  name 
originated  (Acts  11  :26),  had  long  before  been  Romanized  and  was  famous  for 
its  love  of  nicknames.  Renan  thinks  that  the  term  originated  with  the 
Roman  authority  as  an  appellation  de  police.  The  other  two  passages  of  the 
N.  T.  in  which  it  occurs,  Acts  26  : 28  ; 1 Pet.  4 : 16,  seem  to  imply  contempt 
and  dislike,  and  so  it  is  used  by  Tacitus  and  Suetonius.  But  what  was  origin- 
ally meant  by  the  heathen  to  be  a name  of  derision  has  become  the  name  of 
the  highest  honor.  For  what  can  be  nobler  and  better  than  to  be  a true 
Christian,  that  is,  a follower  of  Christ.  It  is  a remarkable  fact  that  the  name 
“ Jesuit,’’  which  was  not  in  use  till  the  sixteenth  century,  has  become,  by  the 
misconduct  of  the  order  which  claimed  it,  a term  of  reproach  even  in  Roman 
Catholic  countries;  while  the  term  “ Christian  ” embraces  proverbially  all  that 
is  noble,  and  good,  and  Christ-like. 


§ 36.  CHRISTIANITY  IN  ROME. 


369 


hospitable  friends  of  Paul,  who  were  probably  converted  before 
they  met  him  in  Corinth.1 

The  Jews,  however,  soon  returned,  and  the  Jewish  Christians 
also,  but  both  under  a cloud  of  suspicion.  To  this  fact  Tacitus 
may  refer  when  he  says  that  the  Christian  superstition  which 
had  been  suppressed  for  a time  (by  the  edict  of  Claudius)  broke 
out  again  (under  Nero,  who  ascended  the  throne  in  54). 


Paul’s  Epistle. 

In  the  early  part  of  Nero’s  reign  (54-68)  the  Roman  congre- 
gation was  already  well  known  throughout  Christendom,  had 
several  meeting  places  and  a considerable  number  of  teachers.2 
It  was  in  view  of  this  fact,  and  in  prophetic  anticipation  of  its 
future  importance,  that  Paul  addressed  to  it  from  Corinth  bis 
most  important  doctrinal  Epistle  (a.d.  58),  which  was  to  prepare 
the  way  for  his  long  desired  personal  visit.  On  his  journey  to 
Pome  three  years  later  he  found  Christians  at  Puteoli  (the 
modern  Puzzuolo  at  the  bay  of  Naples),  who  desired  him  to 
tarry  with  them  seven  days.3 * 5  Some  thirty  or  forty  miles  from 

1 Acts  18:2;  Rom.  16  : 3.  An  unconverted  Jew  would  not  have  taken  the 
apostle  under  his  roof  and  into  partnership.  The  appellation  Tou&cuos  often 
signifies  merely  the  nationality  (comp.  Gal.  2 : 13-15).  The  name  Aquila, 
i.e.,  Eagle,  Adler,  is  still  common  among  Jews,  like  other  high  sounding  ani- 
mal names  (Leo,  Leopardus,  Lowe,  Lowenherz,  Lowenstein,  etc.).  The  Greek 
’ AicvAas  was  a transliteration  of  the  Latin,  and  is  probably  slightly  altered  in 
Onkelos,  the  traditional  author  of  one  of  the  Targums,  whom  the  learned 
Emmanuel  Deutsch  identifies  with  Aquila  (’AfcoAas,  *n  the  Talmud), 

the  Greek  translator  of  the  Old  Testament,  a convert  to  Judaism  in  the  reign 
of  Hadrian,  and  supposed  nephew  of  the  emperor.  Liter.  Remains  (N.  York, 

1874),  pp.  337-340.  The  name  of  his  wife,  Priscilla  (the  diminutive  form  of 

Prisca),  ‘ ‘ probably  indicates  a connection  with  the  gens  of  the  Prisci,  who 
appear  in  the  earliest  stages  of  Roman  history,  and  supplied  a long  series  of 
praetors  and  consuls.”  Plumptre  on  Acts , 18:2. 

5 Rom.  1:8;  16  : 5.  14,  15,  19. 

s Acts  28  : 13.  Puteoli  was,  next  after  Ostia,  the  chief  harbor  of  Western 
Italy  and  the  customary  port  for  the  Alexandrian  grain  ships  ; hence  the  resi- 
dence of  a large  number  of  Jewish  and  other  Oriental  merchants  and  sailors. 
The  whole  population  turned  out  when  the  grain  fleet  from  Alexandria  arrived. 
Sixteen  pillars  still  remain  of  the  mole  on  which  St.  Paul  landed.  See  Fried- 
lander,  II.  129  sq. ; IIL  511,  and  Howson  and  Spence  on  Acts  28  : 13. 


370 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


tlie  city,  at  Appii  Forum  and  Tres  Tabernae  (The  Three  Tav- 
erns), he  was  met  by  Homan  brethren  anxious  to  see  the  writer 
of  that  marvellous  letter,  and  derived  much  comfort  from  this 
token  of  affectionate  regard.1 


Paul  in  Rome. 

His  arrival  in  Rome,  early  in  the  year  61,  which  two  years 
later  was  probably  followed  by  that  of  Peter,  naturally  gave  a 
great  impulse  to  the  growth  of  the  congregation.  He  brought 
with  him,  as  he  had  promised,  “ the  fulness  of  the  blessing  of 
Christ.”  His  very  bonds  were  overruled  for  the  progress  of  the 
gospel,  which  he  was  left  free  to  preach  under  military  guard 
in  his  own  dwelling."  He  had  with  him  during  the  whole  or 
a part  of  the  first  Roman  captivity  his  faithful  pupils  and  com- 
panions : Luke,  “ the  beloved  physician  ” and  historian ; Timo- 
thy, the  dearest  of  his  spiritual  sons ; John  Mark,  who  had 
deserted  him  on  his  first  missionary  tour,  but  joined  him  at 
Rome  and  mediated  between  him  and  Peter ; one  Jesus,  who  is 
called  Justus,  a Jewish  Christian,  who  remained  faithful  to  him ; 
Aristarchus,  his  fellow-prisoner  from  Tliessalonica ; Tycliicus 
from  Ephesus ; Epaphras  and  Onesimus  from  Colossae ; Epa- 
phroditus  from  Philippi ; Demas,  Pudens,  Linus,  Eubulus,  and 
others  who  are  honorably  mentioned  in  the  Epistles  of  the 
captivity.3  They  formed  a noble  band  of  evangelists  and  aided 
the  aged  apostle  in  his  labors  at  Rome  and  abroad.  On  the 
other  hand  his  enemies  of  the  Judaizing  party  were  stimulated 
to  counter-activity,  and  preached  Christ  from  envy  and  jealousy ; 

1 Acts  28 : 15.  The  Forum  of  Appius  (the  probable  builder  of  the  famous 
road  called  after  him)  is  denounced  by  Horace  as  a wretched  town  “filled 
with  sailors  and  scoundrel  tavern-keepers.”  Tres  Tabernae  was  a town  of 
more  importance,  mentioned  in  Cicero’s  letters,  and  probably  located  on  the 
junction  of  the  road  from  Antium  with  the  Via  Appia,  near  the  modern  Cis- 
tema.  The  distances  from  Rome  southward  are  given  in  the  Antonine  Itin- 
erary as  follows  : “to  Aricia,  16  miles ; to  Tres  Tabernae,  17  miles  ; to  Appii 
Forum,  10  miles.” 

2 Phil.  1 : 12-15  ; Acts  28  : 30. 

3 Col.  4 : 7-14  ; Eph.  6 : 21 ; Philem.  24 ; Phil.  2 : 25-30  ; 4:18;  comp,  also 
2 Tim.  4 : 10-12. 


§ 30.  CHRISTIANITY  IN  ROME. 


371 


but  in  noble  self-denial  Paul  rose  above  petty  sectarianism,  and 
sincerely  rejoiced  from  his  lofty  standpoint  if  only  Christ  was 
proclaimed  and  his  kingdom  promoted.  While  he  fearlessly 
vindicated  Christian  freedom  against  Christian  legalism  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  he  preferred  even  a poor  contracted 
Christianity  to  the  heathenism  which  abounded  in  Pome.1 

The  number  which  were  converted  through  these  various 
agencies,  though  disappearing  in  the  heathen  masses  of  the  me- 
tropolis, and  no  doubt  much  smaller  than  the  twenty  thousand 
Jews,  must  have  been  considerable,  for  Tacitus  speaks  of  a 
“ vast  multitude  ” of  Christians  that  perished  in  the  Peronian 
persecution  in  64 ; and  Clement,  referring  to  the  same  persecu- 
tion, likewise  mentions  a “ vast  multitude  of  the  elect,”  who  were 
contemporary  with  Paul  and  Peter,  and  who,  “ through  many 
indignities  and  tortures,  became  a most  noble  example  among 
ourselves  ” (that  is,  the  Poman  Christians).3 


Composition  and  Consolidation  of  the  Poman  Church. 

The  composition  of  the  church  of  Pome  has  been  a matter  of 
much  learned  controversy  and  speculation.  It  no  doubt  was, 
like  most  congregations  outside  of  Palestine,  of  a mixed  charac- 
ter, with  a preponderance  of  the  Gentile  over  the  Jewish  ele- 
ment, but  it  is  impossible  to  estimate  the  numerical  strength  and 
the  precise  relation  which  the  two  elements  sustained  to  each 
other.3 

We  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  it  was  at  once  fully  or- 

1 Phil.  1 : 15-18.  Comp.  Lightfoot  in  loc. 

2 Ad  Cor.,  ch.  6.  The  tto\v  it  a rj&ot  4icA€KTuy  corresponds  precisely  to  the 
“ ingens  multitude  ” of  Tacitus,  Ann.  XV.  44. 

3 Comp,  my  Hist.  Ap.  Ch .,  p.  296  sqq.  Dr.  Baur  attempted  to  revolution- 
ize the  traditional  opinion  of  the  preponderance  of  the  Gentile  element,  and 
to  prove  that  the  Roman  church  consisted  almost  exclusively  of  Jewish  con- 
verts, and  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  a defense  of  Pauline  universalism 
against  Petrine  particularism.  He  was  followed  by  Schwegler,  Reuss,  Man- 
gold, Hilgenfeld,  Volkmar,  Holsten,  Holtzmann,  and  also  to  some  extent  by 
Thiersch  and  Sabatier.  But  he  was  opposed  by  Olshausen,  Tholuck,  Philippi, 
De  Wette,  Meyer,  Schott,  Hofmann,  in  favor  of  the  other  view.  Beyschlag 
proposed  a compromise  to  the  effect  that  the  majority,  in  conformity  with 


372 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


ganized  and  consolidated  into  one  community.  The  Chris* 
tians  were  scattered  all  over  the  immense  city,  and  held  their 
devotional  meetings  in  different  localities.  The  Jewish  and 
the  Gentile  converts  may  have  formed  distinct  communities,  or 
rather  two  sections  of  one  Christian  community. 

Paul  and  Peter,  if  they  met  together  in  Rome  (after  63), 
would  naturally,  in  accordance  with  the  Jerusalem  compact, 
divide  the  field  of  supervision  between  them  as  far  as  practica- 
ble, and  at  the  same  time  promote  union  and  harmony.  This 
may  be  the  truth  which  underlies  the  early  and  general  tradition 
that  they  were  the  joint  founders  of  the  Roman  church.  No 
doubt  their  presence  and  martyrdom  cemented  the  Jewish  and 
Gentile  sections.  But  the  final  consolidation  into  one  organic 
corporation  was  probably  not  effected  till  after  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem. 

This  consolidation  was  chiefly  the  work  of  Clement,  who 
appears  as  the  first  presiding  presbyter  of  the  one  Roman 
church.  He  was  admirably  qualified  to  act  as  mediator  between 
the  disciples  of  Peter  and  Paul,  being  himself  influenced  by 
both,  though  more  by  Paul.  His  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
combines  the  distinctive  features  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  Peter, 
and  James,  and  has  been  called  “ a typical  document,  reflecting 
the  comprehensive  principles  and  large  sympathies  which  had 
been  impressed  upon  the  united  church  of  Rome.”  1 

In  the  second  century  we  see  no  more  traces  of  a twofold 

Paul’s  express  statements,  were  Gentile  Christians,  but  mostly  ex-proselytes, 
and  hence  shared  Judaizing  convictions.  This  view  has  been  approved  by 
Schiirer  and  Schultz.  Among  the  latest  and  ablest  discussions  are  those  of 
Weizsiicker  and  Godet,  who  oppose  the  views  both  of  Baur  and  Beyschlag. 
The  original  nucleus  was  no  doubt  Jewish,  but  the  Gentile  element  soon  out- 
grew it,  as  is  evident  from  the  Epistle  itself,  from  the  last  chapter  of  Acts, 
from  the  Neronian  persecution,  and  other  facts.  Paul  had  a right  to  regard 
the  Roman  congregation  as  belonging  to  his  own  field  of  labor.  The  Judaiz- 
ing tendency  was  not  wanting,  as  we  see  from  the  14th  and  15th  chapters, 
and  from  allusions  in  the  Philippians  and  Second  Timothy,  but  it  had  not  the 
character  of  a bitter  personal  antagonism  to  Paul,  as  in  Galatia,  although  in 
the  second  century  we  find  also  a malignant  type  of  Ebionism  in  Rome,  where 
all  heresies  congregated. 

1 Lightfoot,  Qalat.,  p.  323. 


§ 36.  CHRISTIANITY  IN  ROME. 


373 


community.  But  outside  of  the  orthodox  church,  the  heretical 
schools,  both  Jewish  and  Gentile,  found  likewise  an  early  home 
in  this  rendezvous  of  the  world.  The  fable  of  Simon  Magus  in 
Borne  reflects  this  fact.  Valentinus,  Marcion,  Praxeas,  Theo- 
dotus,  Sabellius,  and  other  arch-heretics  taught  there.  In 
heathen  Rome,  Christian  heresies  and  sects  enjoyed  a toleration 
which  was  afterwards  denied  them  by  Christian  Rome,  until,  in 
1870,  it  became  the  capital  of  united  Italy,  against  the  protest 
of  the  pope. 

Language. 

The  language  of  the  Roman  church  at  that  time  was  the 
Greek,  and  continued  to  be  down  to  the  third  century.  In  that 
language  Paul  wrote  to  Rome  and  from  Rome ; the  names  of  the 
converts  mentioned  in  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  the  Romans,  and 
of  the  early  bishops,  are  mostly  Greek ; all  the  early  literature 
of  the  Roman  church  was  Greek ; even  the  so-called  Apostles’ 
Creed,  in  the  form  held  by  the  church  of  Rome,  was  originally 
Greek.  The  first  Latin  version  of  the  Bible  was  not  made  for 
Rome,  but  for  the  provinces,  especially  for  North  Africa.  The 
Greeks  and  Greek  speaking  Orientals  were  at  that  time  the  most 
intelligent,  enterprising,  and  energetic  people  among  the  middle 
classes  in  Rome.  “ The  successful  tradesmen,  the  skilled  arti- 
sans, the  confidential  servants  and  retainers  of  noble  houses — 
almost  all  the  activity  and  enterprise  of  the  common  people, 
whether  for  good  or  for  evil,  were  Greek.” 1 

Social  Condition. 

The  great  majority  of  the  Christians  in  Rome,  even  down  to 
the  close  of  the  second  century,  belonged  to  the  lower  ranks  of 
society.  They  were  artisans,  freedmen,  slaves.  The  proud 
Roman  aristocracy  of  wealth,  power,  and  knowledge  despised 
the  gospel  as  a vulgar  superstition.  The  contemporary  writers 

1 Lightfoot,  l.  e. , p.  20.  See  especially  the  investigations  of  Caspari,  in  his 
Quellen  zur  Oeschichte  des  Tauf symbols,  vol.  III.  (1875),  267-466.  According 
to  Friedlander,  L 142,  481,  Greek  was  the  favorite  language  at  the  imperial 
court,  and  among  lovers. 


374 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


ignored  it,  or  mentioned  it  only  incidentally  and  with  evident 
contempt.  The  Christian  spirit  and  the  old  Roman  spirit  were 
sharply  and  irreconcilably  antagonistic,  and  sooner  or  later  had 
to  meet  in  deadly  conflict. 

But,  as  in  Athens  and  Corinth,  so  there  were  in  Rome  also  a 
few  honorable  exceptions. 

Paul  mentions  his  success  in  the  praetorian  guard  and  in  the 
imperial  household.1 * 

It  is  possible,  though  not  probable,  that  Paul  became  passingly 
acquainted  with  the  Stoic  philosopher,  Annaeus  Seneca, the  teacher 
of  Nero  and  friend  of  Burrus ; for  he  certainly  knew  his  brother, 
Annaeus  G-allio,  proconsul  at  Corinth,  then  at  Rome,  and  had 
probably  official  relations  with  Burrus,  as  prefect  of  the  praetorian 
guard,  to  which  he  was  committed  as  prisoner ; but  the  story  of 
the  conversion  of  Seneca,  as  well  as  his  correspondence  with 
Paul,  are  no  doubt  pious  fictions,  and,  if  true,  would  be  no  credit 
to  Christianity,  since  Seneca,  like  Lord  Bacon,  denied  his  high 
moral  principles  by  his  avarice  and  meanness.3 

Pomponia  Graecina,  the  wife  of  Aulus  Plautius,  the  con- 
queror of  Britain,  who  was  arraigned  for  “ foreign  superstition  ” 


1 Phil.  1 : 13  ; 4 : 22.  The  irpairupiov  embraces  the  officers  as  well  as  the 
soldiers  of  the  imperial  regiments  ; ol  4k  rrjs  Kaiaapos  olicias  may  include  high 

functionaries  and  courtiers  as  well  as  slaves  and  freedmen,  but  the  latter  is 
more  probable.  The  twenty  names  of  the  earlier  converts  mentioned  in  Rom. 
16  coincide  largely  with  those  in  the  Columbaria  of  the  imperial  household  on 
the  Appian  way.  Comp.  Lightfoot,  Philipp .,  p.  169  sqq.,  Plumptre,  Excursus 
to  his  Com.  on  Acts , and  Harnack,  l.  c. , pp.  258  sq.  Harnack  makes  it  appear 
that  the  two  trusty  servants  of  the  Roman  church,  Claudius  Ephebus  and 
Valerius  Bito,  mentioned  in  the  Epistle  of  Clement  to  the  Corinthians,  c.  63, 
belonged  to  the  household  of  the  emperor  Claudius. 

3 See  above,  § 29,  p.  279,  especially  the  essay  of  Lightfoot  quoted  there. 
Harnack  ( l . c. , p.  260)  and  Friedlander  regard  the  acquaintance  of  Paul  with 
Seneca  as  very  improbable,  Plumptre  as  probable.  An  epitaph  from  the 
third  century  was  found  in  Ostia  which  reads:  DM.  M.  Anneo.  Paulo. 
Petro.  M.  Anneus.  Paulus.  Filio.  Carissimo.  See  De  Rossi  in  the  Bullet, 
di  arched.  christ.y  1867,  pp.  6 sq.,  and  Renan,  UAntechrist , p.  12.  Seneca  be- 
longed to  the  gens  Anncea.  But  all  that  the  inscription  can  be  made  to  prove 
it,  that  a Christian  member  of  the  gens  Anncea  in  the  third  century  bore  the 
name  of  “ Paul,”  and  called  his  son  “ Paulus  Petrus,”  a combination  familial 
to  Christians,  but  unknown  to  the  heathen.  Comp.  Friedlander,  III.  535. 


§ 36.  CHRISTIANITY  IN  ROME. 


375 


about  the  year  57  or  58  (though  pronounced  innocent  by  her 
husband),  and  led  a life  of  continual  sorrow  till  her  death  in  83, 
was  probably  the  first  Christian  lady  of  the  Roman  nobility, 
the  predecessor  of  the  ascetic  Paula  and  Eustochium,  the  com- 
panions of  Jerome.1  Claudia  and  Pudens,  from  whom  Paul 
sends  greetings  (2  Tim.  4 : 21),  have,  by  an  ingenious  conjecture, 
been  identified  with  the  couple  of  that  name,  who  are  respect- 
fully mentioned  by  Martial  in  his  epigrams ; but  this  is  doubtful.2 

A generation  later  two  cousins  of  the  Emperor  Domitian  (81- 
96),  T.  Flavius  Clemens,  consul  (in  95),  and  his  wife,  Flavia 
Domitilla,  were  accused  of  “ atheism,”  that  is,  of  Christianity, 
and  condemned,  the  husband  to  death,  the  wife  to  exile  (a.d. 
96).3  Recent  excavations  in  the  catacomb  of  Domitilla,  near 
that  of  Callistus,  establish  the  fact  that  an  entire  branch  of  the 
Flavian  family  had  embraced  the  Christian  faith.  Such  a 
change  was  wrought  within  fifty  or  sixty  years  after  Christianity 
had  entered  Rome.4 

1 Her  Christianity  has  been  inferred  from  the  vague  description  of  Tacitus, 
Ann.  XIII.  32.  See  Friedliinder  III.  534 ; Lightfoot,  p.  21  ; Northcote  and 
Brownlow,  I.  82  sq.  ; Harnack,  p.  263.  The  inference  is  confirmed  by  the 
discovery  of  the  gravestone  of  a Pomponius  Grcecinus  and  other  members  of  the 
same  family,  in  the  very  ancient  crypt  of  Lucina,  near  the  catacomb  of  St. 
Callistus.  De  Rossi  conjectures  that  Lucina  was  the  Christian  name  of  Pom- 
ponia  Grsecina.  But  Renan  doubts  this,  L'Antech .,  p.  4,  note  2. 

a Plumptre,  l.  c.  Martial,  a Spaniard  by  birth,  came  to  Rome  a.d.  66. 

3 Sueton.,  Bomit.  15  ; Dion  Cass.,  67,  14  ; Euseb.,  H.  E.  III.  18. 

4 De  Rossi,  Bullett.  for  1865,  1874  and  1875;  Lightfoot,  Si.  Clement  of  Pome, 
Append.,  257  eq.,  Harnack,  266-269. 


376 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


CHAPTER  YI. 

THE  GREAT  TRIBULATION.  (Matt.  24 : 21.) 

§ 37.  The  Roman  Conflagration  and  the  Neronian  Persecution. 

“And  I paw  the  woman  drunken  with  the  blood  of  the  saints,  and  with  the 
blood  of  the  martyrs  of  Jesus.  And  when  I saw  her,  I wondered  with  a great 
wonder.” — Apoc.  17  : 6. 


Literature. 

I.  Tacitus:  Annales,  1.  XV.,  c.  38-44. 

Suetonius  : Nero,  chs.  16  and  38  (very  brief). 

Sulpicius  Severus  : Hist.  Sacra , 1.  II.,  c.  41.  He  gives  to  the  Ne- 
ronian persecution  a more  general  character. 

H.  Ernest  Renan  : L Antechrist.  Paris,  deuxi&me  ed.,  1873.  Chs.  VI.- 
VIII , pp.  123  sqq.  Also  his  Hibbert  Lectures , delivered  in  London, 
1880,  on  Rome  and  Christianity. 

L.  Friedlander  : Sittengeschichte  Boms , I.  6,  27  ; III.  529. 

Hermann  Schiller  : Geschichte  dei'  rbm.  Kaiser zeit  untei'  der  Regie- 
rung  des  Nero.  Berlin,  1872  (173-179 ; 424  sqq.  ; 583  sqq.). 

Hausrath  : N T.liche  Zeilgeschichte , III.  392  sqq.  (2d  ed.,  1875). 

Theod.  Keim  : Aus  dem  Urchristenthum.  Zurich,  1878,  pp.  171- 
181.  Rom  u.  das  Christentkum , 1881,  pp.  132  sqq. 

Karl  Wieseler  : Lie  Christenverfolgungen  der  Casaren . 1878. 

G.  Uhlhorn  : The  Conflict  of  Christianity  with  Heathenism.  Engl, 
transl.  by  Smyth  and  Ropes , N.  Y.  1879,  pp.  241-250. 

C.  F.  Arnold  : Die  Neron.  Christenverfolgung.  Leipz.  1888. 

The  preaching  of  Paul  and  Peter  in  Rome  was  an  epoch  in 
the  history  of  the  church.  It  gave  an  impulse  to  the  growth 
of  Christianity.  Their  martyrdom  was  even  more  effective  in 
the  end:  it  cemented  the  bond  of  union  between  the  Jewish 
and  Gentile  converts,  and  consecrated  the  soil  of  the  heathen 
metropolis.  Jerusalem  crucified  the  Lord,  Rome  beheaded  and 
crucified  his  chief  apostles  and  plunged  the  whole  Roman  church 


§ 37.  THE  NERONIAN  PERSECUTION. 


377 


into  a baptism  of  blood.  Home  became,  for  good  and  for  evil, 
the  Jerusalem  of  Christendom,  and  the  Vatican  hill  the  Golgotha 
of  the  West.  Peter  and  Paul,  like  a new  Romulus  and  Remus, 
laid  the  foundation  of  a spiritual  empire  vaster  and  more  endur- 
ing than  that  of  the  Caesars.  The  cross  was  substituted  for  the 
sword  as  the  symbol  of  conquest  and  power.1 

But  the  change  was  effected  at  the  sacrifice  of  precious  blood. 
The  Roman  empire  was  at  first,  by  its  laws  of  justice,  the  pro- 
tector of  Christianity,  without  knowing  its  true  character,  and 
came  to  the  rescue  of  Paul  on  several  critical  occasions,  as  in 
Corinth  through  the  Proconsul  Annaeus  Gallio,  in  Jerusalem 
through  the  Captain  Lysias,  and  in  Caesarea  through  the  Pro- 
curator Festus.  But  now  it  rushed  into  deadly  conflict  with 
the  new  religion,  and  opened,  in  the  name  of  idolatry  and  pa- 
triotism, a series  of  intermittent  persecutions,  which  ended  at 
last  in  the  triumph  of  the  banner  of  the  cross  at  the  Milvian 
bridge.  Formerly  a restraining  power  that  kept  back  for  a 
while  the  outbreak  of  Antichrist,2  it  now  openly  assumed  the 
character  of  Antichrist  with  fire  and  swTord. 8 

1 Lange  on  Romans,  p.  29  (Am.  ed.) : “ As  the  light  and  darkness  of  Juda- 
ism was  centralized  in  Jerusalem,  the  theocratic  city  of  God  (the  holy  city, 
the  murderer  of  the  prophets),  so  was  heathen  Rome,  the  humanitarian  me- 
tropolis of  the  world,  the  centre  of  all  the  elements  of  light  and  darkness 
prevalent  in  the  heathen  world  ; and  so  did  Christian  Rome  become  the  cen- 
tre of  all  the  elements  of  vital  light,  and  of  all  the  antichristian  darkness  in 
the  Christian  church.  Hence  Rome,  like  Jerusalem,  not  only  possesses  a 
unique  historical  significance,  but  is  a universal  picture  operative  through  all 
ages.  Christian  Rome,  especially,  stands  fortn  as  a shining  light  of  the  na- 
tions, which  is  turned  into  an  idol  of  magical  strength  to  those  who  are  sub- 
ject to  its  rule.” 

2 In  2 Thess.  2 : 6,  7,  rb  icarcxov  is  the  Roman  empire,  6 Karix^v  the  em- 
peror as  its  representative.  This  is  the  patristic  interpretation  to  which  some 
of  the  best  modern  commentators  have  returned.  Mediaeval  sects  and  many 
Protestant  writers  found  the  great  apostacy  in  the  Papacy  and  the  restraining 
power  in  the  German  empire  ; while  papal  commentators  took  revenge  by 
fastening  the  charge  of  apostacy  on  the  Reformation  which  was  restrained 
by  the  Papacy.  I believe  in  a repeated  and  growing  fulfilment  of  this  and 
other  prophecies  on  the  historic  basis  of  the  apostolic  age  and  the  old  Roman 
empire. 

3 It  is  so  represented  in  the  Apocalypse  (ch.  13-18)  after  the  Neronian  per- 
secution. 


378 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Nero. 

The  first  of  these  imperial  persecutions  with  which  the  marv 
tyrdom  of  Peter  and  Paul  is  connected  by  ecclesiastical  tradition, 
took  place  in  the  tenth  year  of  Nero’s  reign,  a.d.  64,  and  by  the 
instigation  of  that  very  emperor  to  whom  Paul,  as  a Pom  an 
citizen,  had  appealed  from  the  Jewish  tribunal.  It  was,  how- 
ever, not  a strictly  religious  persecution,  like  those  under  the 
later  emperors  ; it  originated  in  a public  calamity  which  was  wan- 
tonly charged  upon  the  innocent  Christians. 

A greater  contrast  can  hardly  be  imagined  than  that  between 
Paul,  one  of  the  purest  and  noblest  of  men,  and  Nero,  one  of 
the  basest  and  vilest  of  tyrants.  The  glorious  first  five  years  of 
Nero’s  reign  (54-59)  under  the  wise  guidance  of  Seneca  and 
Burrhus,  make  the  other  nine  (59-68)  only  more  hideous  by 
contrast.  We  read  his  life  with  mingled  feelings  of  contempt 
for  his  folly,  and  horror  of  his  wickedness.  The  world  was  to 
him  a comedy  and  a tragedy,  in  which  he  was  to  be  the  chief 
actor.  He  had  an  insane  passion  for  popular  applause;  he 
played  on  the  lyre ; he  sung  his  odes  at  supper ; he  drove  his 
chariots  in  the  circus  ; he  appeared  as  a mimic  on  the  stage,  and 
compelled  men  of  the  highest  rank  to  represent  in  dramas  or  in 
tableaux  the  obscenest  of  the  Greek  myths.  But  the  comedian 
was  surpassed  by  the  tragedian.  He  heaped  crime  upon  crime 
until  he  became  a proverbial  monster  of  iniquity.  The  murder 
of  his  brother  (Britannicus),  his  mother  (Agrippina),  his  wives 
(Octavia  and  Poppaea),  his  teacher  (Seneca),  and  many  eminent 
Homans,  was  fitly  followed  by  his  suicide  in  the  thirty-second 
year  of  his  age.  With  him  the  family  of  Julius  Caesar  ignomini- 
ously  perished,  and  the  empire  became  the  prize  of  successful 
soldiers  and  adventurers.1 

1 Comp.  Renan’s  portraiture  of  Nero,  l.  c.  ch.  I.  He  thinks  that  there  is 
no  parallel  to  this  monster,  and  calls  him  un  esprit  prodigieusement  declama - 
toire , une  mauvaise  nature , hypocrite,  legere , raniteuse  ; un  compose  incroyable 
d' intelligence  fausse , de  mechancete  profonde,  d’egoisme  atroce  et  sournois,  avec 
des  raffinements  inouis  de  subtilite”  See  also  the  description  of  Merivale,  ch. 
LV.  (vol.  VI.  245  sqq. ). 


§ 37.  TIIE  NERONIAN  PERSECUTION. 


379 


The  Conflagration  in  Rome. 

For  such  a demon  in  human  shape,  the  murder  of  a crowd 
of  innocent  Christians  was  pleasant  sport.  The  occasion  of  the 
hellish  spectacle  was  a fearful  conflagration  of  Rome,  the  most 
destructive  and  disastrous  that  ever  occurred  in  history.  It 
broke  out  in  the  night  between  the  18th  and  19th  of  July,1 
among  the  wooden  shops  in  the  south-eastern  end  of  the  Great 
Circus,  near  the  Palatine  hill.2  Lashed  by  the  wind,  it  defied 
all  exertions  of  the  firemen  and  soldiers,  and  raged  with  unabated 
fury  for  seven  nights  and  six  days.3  Then  it  burst  out  again  in 
another  part,  near  the  field  of  Mars,  and  in  three  days  more  laid 
waste  two  other  districts  of  the  city.4 

The  calamity  was  incalculable.  Only  four  of  the  fourteen 
regions  into  which  the  city  was  divided,  remained  uninjured  ; 
three,  including  the  whole  interior  city  from  the  Circus  to  the 
Esquiline  hill,  were  a shapeless  mass  of  ruins ; the  remaining 

1 Tacitus  (Ann.  XV.  41)  gives  the  date  quarto  decimo  [ante]  Kalendas  Sex- 
tiles  . . . quo  et  Senones  captam  urbem  inflammaverant.  Friedlander,  I.  6, 
wrongly  makes  it  the  17th  July.  The  coincidence  with  the  day  when  the  Gauls 
had  set  fire  to  Rome  (July  19,  a.u.  364,  or  453  years  before),  was  considered 
a bad  omen.  It  was  in  the  tenth  year  of  Nero’s  reign,  i.e.,  a.d.  64.  See 
Clinton,  Fasti  Romani , I.  Oxon.  1845,  pp.  45,  46  ; Friedlander,  l.  c.  I.  6 ; Schil- 
ler, l.  c.  pp.  173  sq. ; Merivale,  VI.  131,  note.  Eusebius,  in  his  Chronicle , er- 
roneously puts  the  fire  in  the  year  66. 

2 For  a description  of  the  Circus  Maximus  see  Friedlander,  III.  293  sqq.  The 
amphitheatrical  rows  of  seats  were  eight  stadia  long,  with  accommodation  for 
150,000  persons.  After  Nero’s  reconstruction  the  seats  amounted  to  250,000 
under  Vespasian  us,  and  subsequent  additions  raised  the  number,  in  the  fourth 
century,  to  385,000.  It  was  surrounded  by  wooden  buildings  for  shopkeepers 
(among  whom  were  many  Jews),  astrologers,  caterers,  prostitutes,  and  all 
sorts  of  amusements.  Nero  was  most  extravagant  in  his  expenditure  for  the 
circus  and  the  theatre  to  gratify  the  people’s  passion  for  Pantm  et  Circenses , 
to  use  Juvenal’s  words. 

3 “ Per  sex  dies  septemque  nodes"  Sueton.  Nero,  38  ; “ sex  dies"  Tacit.  Ann. 
XV.  40. 

4 The  nine  days’  duration  is  proved  by  an  inscription  (Gruter,  61.  3).  The 
great  fire  in  London  in  1666  lasted  only  four  days  and  swept  an  area  of  436 
acres.  Comp.  Lambert’s  Hist,  of  London , II.  91,  quoted  by  Merivale.  The 
fire  in  Chicago  lasted  only  thirty-six  hours,  October  8 and  9,  1871,  but  swept 
over  nearly  three  and  one-third  square  miles  (2,114  square  acres),  and  destroyed 
17,450  buildings,  the  homes  of  98,500  people. 


380 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


seven  were  more  or  less  destroyed ; venerable  temples,  mom* 
mental  buildings  of  the  royal,  republican,  and  imperial  times, 
the  richest  creations  of  Greek  art  which  had  been  collected  for 
centuries,  were  turned  into  dust  and  ashes ; men  and  beasts  per- 
ished in  the  flames,  and  the  metropolis  of  the  world  assumed 
the  aspect  of  a graveyard  with  a million  of  mourners  over  the 
loss  of  irreparable  treasures. 

This  fearful  catastrophe  must  have  been  before  the  mind  of 
St.  John  in  the  Apocalypse  when  he  wrote  his  funeral  dirge 
of  the  downfall  of  imperial  Home  (ch.  18). 

The  cause  of  the  conflagration  is  involved  in  mystery.  Pub- 
lic rumor  traced  it  to  Kero,  who  wished  to  enjoy  the  lurid  spec- 
tacle of  burning  Troy,  and  to  gratify  his  ambition  to  rebuild 
Pome  on  a more  magnificent  scale,  and  to  call  it  Keropolis.1 
When  the  fire  broke  out  he  was  on  the  seashore  at  Antium,  his 
birthplace  ; he  returned  when  the  devouring  element  reached 
his  own  palace,  and  made  extraordinary  efforts  to  stay  and  then 
to  repair  the  disaster  by  a reconstruction  which  continued  till 
after  his  death,  not  forgetting  to  replace  his  partially  destroyed 
temporary  residence  ( domus  transitoria ) by  “ the  golden  house  ” 
( domus  aurea\  as  a standing  wonder  of  architectural  magnifi- 
cence and  extravagance. 

The  Persecution  of  the  Christians. 

To  divert  from  himself  the  general  suspicion  of  incendi- 
arism, and  at  the  same  time  to  furnish  new  entertainment  for 
his  diabolical  cruelty,  Kero  wickedly  cast  the  blame  upon  the 
hated  Christians,  who,  meanwhile,  especially  since  the  public 

1 Tacitus  XV.  39:  1 4 Pervaserat  rumor  ipso  tempore  flagrantis  urbis  inisse 
turn  domesticam  scenam  et  cecinisse  Troianum  excidium.  ” Sueton.  c.  38 : 
4 ‘ Quasi  off  emus  deformitate  veterum  (edificioi‘um  et  angustiis  flexurisque  vicorum 
[Nero]  incendit  Urbem  . . . Hoc  incendium  e turre  Mcecenatiana  prospectans , 
IcBtusque  iflammcey>  ut  ajebat,  ‘ pulchritudine'  &\a><nv  Ilii  in  illo  suo  scomico 
habitu  decantavit.  ” Robbers  and  ruffians  were  seen  to  thrust  blazing  brands 
into  the  buildings,  and.  when  seized,  they  affirmed  that  they  acted  under 
higher  orders.  The  elder  Pliny,  Xiphilinus,  and  the  author  of  the  tragedy, 
Octaviay  likewise  charge  Nero  with  incendiarism.  But  Schiller,  L o.  426  sqq., 
labors  to  relieve  him  of  it. 


§ 37.  TIIE  NERONIAN  PERSECUTION. 


381 


trial  of  Paul  and  liis  successful  labors  in  Pome,  had  come  to  be 
distinguished  from  the  Jews  as  a genus  tertium , or  as  the  most 
dangerous  offshoot  from  that  race.  They  were  certainly  de- 
spisers  of  the  Roman  gods  and  loyal  subjects  of  a higher  king 
than  Caesar,  and  they  were  falsely  suspected  of  secret  crimes. 
The  police  and  people,  under  the  influence  of  the  panic  created 
by  the  awful  calamity,  were  ready  to  believe  the  worst  slanders, 
and  demanded  victims.  What  could  be  expected  of  the  igno- 
rant multitude,  when  even  such  cultivated  Romans  as  Tacitus, 
Suetonius,  and  Pliny,  stigmatized  Christianity  as  a vulgar  and 
pestiferous  superstition.  It  appeared  to  them  even  worse  than 
Judaism,  which  was  at  least  an  ancient  national  religion,  while 
Christianity  was  novel,  detached  from  any  particular  nationality, 
and  aiming  at  universal  dominion.  Some  Christians  were 
arrested,  confessed  their  faith,  and  were  “ convicted  not  so  much,” 
says  Tacitus,  “ of  the  crime  of  incendiarism  as  of  hating  the 
human  race.”  Their  Jewish  origin,  their  indifference  to  politics 
and  public  affairs,  their  abhorrence  of  heathen  customs,  were 
construed  into  an  “ odium  generis  Kumani ,”  and  this  made  an 
attempt  on  their  part  to  destroy  the  city  sufficiently  plausible  to 
justify  a verdict  of  guilty.  An  infuriated  mob  does  not  stop  to 
reason,  and  is  as  apt  to  run  mad  as  an  individual. 

Under  this  wanton  charge  of  incendiarism,  backed  by  the 
equally  groundless  charge  of  misanthropy  and  unnatural  vice, 
there  began  a carnival  of  blood  such  as  even  heathen  Rome  never 
saw  before  or  since.1  It  was  the  answer  of  the  powers  of  hell 
to  the  mighty  preaching  of  the  two  chief  apostles,  which  had 
shaken  heathenism  to  its  centre.  A “ vast  multitude  ” of  Cfiris- 
tians  was  put  to  death  in  the  most  shocking  manner.  Some 
were  crucified,  probably  in  mockery  of  the  punishment  of  Christ,2 

1 We  do  not  know  the  precise  date  of  the  massacre.  Mosheim  fixes  it  on 
November,  Renan  on  August,  a.d.  64.  Several  weeks  or  months  at  all  events 
must  have  passed  after  the  fire.  If  the  traditional  date  of  Peter’s  crucifixion 
be  correct,  there  would  be  an  interval  of  nearly  a year  between  the  conflagra- 
tion, July  19,  64,  and  his  martyrdom,  June  29th. 

2 “ Crucibus  affixi ,”  says  Tacitus.  This  would  well  apply  to  Peter,  to  whom 
our  Lord  had  prophesied  such  a death,  John  21  : 18,  19.  Tertullian  says : 


382 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


some  sewed  up  in  the  skins  of  wild  beasts  and  exposed  to  the 
voracity  of  mad  dogs  in  the  arena.  The  Satanic  tragedy  reached 
its  climax  at  night  in  the  imperial  gardens  on  the  slope  of  the 
Vatican  (which  embraced,  it  is  supposed,  the  present  site  of  the 
place  and  church  of  St.  Peter):  Christian  men  and  women, 
covered  with  pitch  or  oil  or  resin,  and  nailed  to  posts  of  pine, 
were  lighted  and  burned  as  torches  for  the  amusement  of  the 
mob ; while  Nero,  in  fantastical  dress,  figured  in  a horse  race, 
and  displayed  his  art  as  charioteer.  Burning  alive  was  the 
ordinary  punishment  of  incendiaries ; but  only  the  cruel  inge- 
nuity of  this  imperial  monster,  under  the  inspiration  of  the 
devil,  could  invent  such  a horrible  system  of  illumination. 

This  is  the  account  of  the  greatest  heathen  historian,  the  full- 
est we  have — as  the  best  description  of  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem is  from  the  pen  of  the  learned  Jewish  historian.  Thus 
enemies  bear  witness  to  the  truth  of  Christianity.  Tacitus  inci- 
dentally mentions  in  this  connection  the  crucifixion  of  Christ 
under  Pontius  Pilate,  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius.  With  all  his 
haughty  Homan  contempt  for  the  Christians  whom  he  knew 
only  from  rumor  and  reading,  he  was  convinced  of  their  inno- 
cence of  incendiarism,  and  notwithstanding  his  cold  stoicism,  he 
could  not  suppress  a feeling  of  pity  for  them  because  they  were 
sacrificed  not  to  the  public  good,  but  to  the  ferocity  of  a wicked 
tyrant. 

Some  historians  have  doubted,  not  indeed  the  truth  of  this 

“Roma  Petrus  passioni  Dominica  adaquatur  ” (De  Prascript.  Haret .,  c.  36  ; 
comp.  Adv.  Marc.,  IY.  5 ; Scorpiace , 15).  According  to  a later  tradition  he 
was,  at  his  own  request,  crucified  with  his  head  downwards,  deeming  himself 
unworthy  to  be  crucified  as  was  his  Lord.  This  is  first  mentioned  in  the  Acta 
Pauli , c.  81,  by  Origen  (in  Euseb.  H.  E .,  III.  1)  and  more  clearly  by  Jerome 
( Catal . 1)  ; but  is  doubtful,  although  such  cruelties  were  occasionally  prac- 
tised (see  Josephus,  Bell.  Jud . , Y.  11,  1).  Tradition  mentions  also  the  mar- 
tyrdom of  Peter’s  wife,  who  was  cheered  by  the  apostle  on  her  way  to  the 
place  of  execution  and  exhorted  to  remember  the  Lord  on  the  cross 
rod  K vplov).  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Strom.  VII.  11,  quoted  by  Eusebius, 
H.  E III.  30.  The  orderly  execution  of  Paul  by  the  sword  indicates  a 
regular  legal  process  before,  or  more  probably  at  least  a year  after,  the  Ne- 
ronian  persecution,  in  which  his  Roman  citizenship  would  scarcely  have  been 
respected.  See  p.  326. 


§ 37.  TIIE  NERONIAN  PERSECUTION. 


383 


terrible  persecution,  but  that  the  Christians,  rather  than  the  Jews, 
or  the  Christians  alone,  were  the  sufferers.  It  seems  difficult 
to  understand  that  the  harmless  and  peaceful  Christians,  whom 
the  contemporary  writers,  Seneca,  Pliny,  Lucan,  Persius,  ignore, 
while  they  notice  the  Jews,  should  so  soon  have  become  the 
subjects  of  popular  indignation.  It  is  supposed  that  Tacitus 
and  Suetonius,  writing  some  fifty  years  after  the  event,  con- 
founded the  Christians  with  the  Jews,  who  were  generally  ob- 
noxious to  the  Homans,  and  justified  the  suspicion  of  incendiar- 
ism by  the  escape  of  their  transtiberine  quarter  from  the  injury 
of  the  fire.1 

But  the  atrocious  act  was  too  public  to  leave  room  for  such  a 
mistake.  Both  Tacitus  and  Suetonius  distinguish  the  two  sects, 
although  they  knew  very  little  of  either ; and  the  former  express- 
ly derives  the  name  Christians  from  Christ,  as  the  founder  of  the 
new  religion.  Moreover  Hero,  as  previously  remarked,  was  not 
averse  to  the  Jews,  and  his  second  wife,  Poppsea  Sabina,  a year 
before  the  conflagration,  had  shown  special  favor  to  Josephus, 
and  loaded  him  with  presents.  Josephus  speaks  of  the  crimes  of 
Hero,  but  says  not  a word  of  any  persecution  of  his  fellow-reli- 
gioniscs.2 3 *  This  alone  seems  to  be  conclusive.  It  is  not  unlikely 
that  in  this  (as  in  all  previous  persecutions,  and  often  after- 
wards) the  fanatical  Jews,  enraged  by  the  rapid  progress  of 
Christianity,  and  anxious  to  avert  suspicion  from  themselves, 
stirred  up  the  people  against  the  hated  Galilseans,  and  that  the 
heathen  Homans  fell  with  double  fury  on  these  supposed  half 
Jews,  disowned  by  their  own  strange  brethren.5 

1 So  Gibbon  (ch.  XVI.),  more  recently  Merivale,  l.  c.  ch.  54  (vol.  VI.  220, 
4th  ed.),  and  Schiller,  l.  c.,  pp.  434,  585,  followed  by  Hausrath  and  Stahr. 

Merivale  and  Schiller  assume  that  the  persecution  was  aimed  at  the  Jews 
and  Christians  indiscriminately.  Guizot,  Milman,  Neander,  Gieseler,  Renan, 
Ligiitfoot,  Wieseler,  and  Keim  defend  or  assume  the  accuracy  of  Tacitus  and 
Suetonius. 

3 Ant.  XX.  8,  2,  3. 

8 So  Ewald.  VI.  627,  and  Renan,  I? Antechrist,  pp.  159  sqq.  Renan  inge* 

niously  conjectures  that  the  “jealousy”  to  which  Clement  of  Rome  (Ad  Cor. 
6)  traces  the  persecution,  refers  to  the  divisions  among  the  Jews  about  the 
Christian  reli<rion. 


384 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


The  Probable  Extent  of  the  Persecution. 

The  heathen  historians,  if  we  are  to  judge  from  their  silence, 
seem  to  confine  the  persecution  to  the  city  of  Pome,  but  later 
Christian  writers  extend  it  to  the  provinces.1 *  The  example  set 
by  the  emperor  in  the  capital  could  hardly  be  without  influence 
in  the  provinces,  and  would  justify  the  outbreak  of  popular 
hatred.  If  the  Apocalypse  was  written  under  Hero,  or  shortly 
after  his  death,  John’s  exile  to  Patmos  must  be  connected  with 
this  persecution.  It  mentions  imprisonments  in  Smyrna,  the 
martyrdom  of  Antipas  in  Pergamus,  and  speaks  of  the  murder  of 
prophets  and  saints  and  all  that  have  been  slain  on  the  earth.3 4 
The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  which  was  written  in  Italy,  proba- 
bly in  the  year  64,  likewise  alludes  to  bloody  persecutions,  10  : 
32-34,  and  to  the  release  of  Timothy  from  prison,  13  : 23.  And 
Peter,  in  his  first  Epistle,  which  may  be  assigned  to  the  same 
year,  immediately  after  the  outbreak  of  the  persecution,  and 
shortly  before  his  death,  warns  the  Christians  in  Asia  Minor 
of  a fiery  trial  which  is  to  try  them,  and  of  sufferings  already 
endured  or  to  be  endured,  not  for  any  crime,  but  for  the  name 
of  “ Christians.”  3 The  name  “ Babylon  ” for  Pome  is  most 
easily  explained  by  the  time  and  circumstances  of  composition. 

Christianity,  which  had  just  reached  the  age  of  its  founder, 

1 Orosius  (about  400),  Ilist. , VII.  7 : “ Primus  Romce  Christianos  suppliciis 
et  mortibus  adferit  {Nero] , ac  per  omnes  provincial  pari  persecutione  excruciari 
imperavit.  ” So  also  Sulpicius  Severus,  Chron.  II.  29.  Dodwell  {Dissert.  Cypr. 
XI.,  De  paucitate  martyrum,  Gibbon,  Milman,  Merivale,  and  Schiller  (p.  438) 
deny,  but  Ewald  (VI.  627,  and  in  his  Com.  on  theApoc.)  and  Renan  (p.  183)  very 
decidedly  affirm  the  extension  of  the  persecution  beyond  Rome.  “ V atrociie 
comma ndee  par  Neron says  Renan,  “ dut  avoir  des  contre-coups  dans  les  prov- 
inces et  y exciter  une  recrudescence  de  persecution."  C.  L.  Roth  ( Werke  des 
Tacitus,  VI.  117)  and  Wieseler  ( Christenverfolgungen  der  Casaren , p.  11) 
assume  that  Nero  condemned  and  prohibited  Christianity  as  dangerous  to  the 
state.  Kiessling  and  De  Rossi  have  found  in  an  inscription  at  Pompeii  traces 

of  a bloody  persecution ; but  the  reading  is  disputed,  see  Schiller,  p.  438, 

Friedlander  III.  529,  and  Renan,  p.  184. 

* Ch.  2 : 9,  10,  13  ; 16  : 6 ; 17:6;  18  : 24. 

* 1 Pet.  2 : 12,  19,  20 ; 3 : 14-18  ; 4 : 12-19. 

4 At  the  close,  1 Pet.  5 : 13. 


§ 37.  THE  NERONIAN  PERSECUTION. 


385 


seemed  annihilated  in  Rome.  With  Peter  and  Paul  the  first 
generation  of  Christians  was  buried.  Darkness  must  have  over- 
shadowed the  trembling  disciples,  and  a despondency  seized 
them  almost  as  deep  as  on  the  evening  of  the  crucifixion,  thirty- 
four  years  before.  But  the  morning  of  the  resurrection  was  not 
far  distant,  and  the  very  spot  of  the  martyrdom  of  St.  Peter 
was  to  become  the  site  of  the  greatest  church  in  Christendom 
and  the  palatial  residence  of  his  reputed  successors.1 


The  Apocalypse  on  the  Reronian  Persecution. 

Rone  of  the  leading  apostles  remained  to  record  the  horrible 
massacre,  except  John.  He  may  have  heard  of  it  in  Ephesus, 
or  he  may  have  accompanied  Peter  to  Rome  and  escaped  a fear- 
ful death  in  the  Reronian  gardens,  if  we  are  to  credit  the  ancient 
tradition  of  his  miraculous  preservation  from  being  burnt  alive 
with  his  fellow- Christians  in  that  hellish  illumination  on  the 
Vatican  hill.3  At  all  events  he  was  himself  a victim  of  persecu- 

1 “Those  who  survey,”  says  Gibbon  (ch.  XVI.),  “with  a curious  eye  the 
revolutions  of  mankind,  may  observe  that  the  gardens  and  circus  of  Nero  on 
the  Vatican,  which  were  polluted  with  the  blood  of  the  first  Christians,  have 
been  rendered  still  more  famous  by  the  triumph  and  by  the  abuse  of  the  per- 
secuted religion.  On  the  same  spot,  a temple,  which  far  surpasses  the  ancient 
glories  of  the  capital,  has  been  since  erected  by  the  Christian  pontiffs,  who, 
deriving  their  claim  of  universal  dominion  from  a humble  fisherman  of  Gali- 
lee, have  succeeded  to  the  throne  of  the  Caesars,  given  laws  to  the  barbarian 
conquerors  of  Rome,  and  extended  their  spiritual  jurisdiction  from  the  coast 
of  the  Baltic  to  the  shores  of  the  Pacific  Ocean.”  Comp.  Renan,  L'Antechr . 
p.  177  : “ L'orgie  de  Neron  fut  le  grand  bapteme  de  sang  qui  designa  Borne , 
comrne  la  mile  des  martyrs , pour  jouer  un  role  d part  dans  Vhistoire  du  chris - 
tianisme , et  en  etre  la  seconds  vide  sainte.  Ce  fut  la  prise  de  possession  de  la 
colline  Vaticane  par  ces  triomphateurs  (Tun  genre  ineonnu  jusque-ld  . . . Borne, 
rendue  responsable  de  tout  le  sang  verse,  deoint  comme  Babylone  une  sm'te  de 
vUle  sacramentdle  et  symbolique .” 

* Tertullian  mentions  it  in  connection  with  the  crucifixion  of  Peter  and 
the  decapitation  of  Paul  as  apparently  occurring  at  the  same  time ; Be 
Prcescript.  Hcer.,  c.  36:  “ Ista  quam  felix  ecdesia  (the  church  of  Rome) 
cut  totam  doctrinam  apostdi  sanguine  suo  profuderunt , ubi  Petrus  passioni 
DominiccB  adeequatur , ubi  Paulus  Joannis  exitu  coronatur , ubi  Apostolus 
Joannes,  posteaquam  in  oleum  igneum  demersus  nihil  passus  est,  in 
insulam  relegatur.”  Comp.  Jerome,  Adv.  Jovin .,  1,  26,  and  in  Matt . 
22  : 23  ; and  Euseb.,  H.  K,  VI.  5.  Renan  (p.  196)  conjectures  that  John  was 


386 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


tion  for  tlie  name  of  Jesus,  and  depicted  its  horrors,  as  an  exile 
on  the  lonely  island  of  Patmos  in  the  vision  of  the  Apocalypse. 

This  mysterious  hook — whether  written  between  68  and  69, 
or  under  Domitian  in  95 — wras  undoubtedly  intended  for  the 
church  of  that  age  as  well  as  for  future  ages,  and  must  have  been 
sufficiently  adapted  to  the  actual  condition  and  surroundings  of 
its  first  readers  to  give  them  substantial  aid  and  comfort  in  their 
fiery  trials.  Owing  to  the  nearness  of  events  alluded  to,  they 
must  have  understood  it  even  better,  for  practical  purposes,  than 
readers  of  later  generations.  John  looks,  indeed,  forward  to  the 
final  consummation,  but  he  sees  the  end  in  the  beginning.  He 
takes  his  standpoint  on  the  historic  foundation  of  the  old  Homan 
empire  in  which  he  lived,  as  the  visions  of  the  prophets  of 
Israel  took  their  departure  from  the  kingdom  of  David  or  the  age 
of  the  Babylonian  captivity.  He  describes  the  heathen  Home 
of  his  day  as  “ the  beast  that  ascended  out  of  the  abyss,”  as  “ a 
beast  coming  out  of  the  sea,  having  ten  horns  and  seven  heads  ” 
(or  kings,  emperors),  as  “ the  great  harlot  that  sittetli  among 
many  waters,”  as  a “ woman  sitting  upon  a scarlet-colored  beast, 
full  of  names  of  blasphemy,  having  seven  heads  and  ten  horns,” 
as  “ Babylon  the  great,  the  mother  of  the  harlots  and  of  the 
abominations  of  the  earth.”  1 The  seer  must  have  in  view  the 
Heronian  persecution,  the  most  cruel  that  ever  occurred,  when 
he  calls  the  woman  seated  on  seven  hills,  “ drunken  with  the 
blood  of  the  saints  and  with  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  of  Jesus,”  3 
and  prophesied  her  downfall  as  a matter  of  rejoicing  for  the 
“ saints  and  apostles  and  prophets.”  3 

Hecent  commentators  discover  even  a direct  allusion  to  Hero, 
as  expressing  in  Hebrew  letters  ( Neron  Kesar)  the  mysterious 

destined  to  shine  in  the  illumination  of  the  Neronian  gardens,  and  was  actu- 
ally steeped  in  oil  for  the  purpose,  but  saved  by  an  accident  or  caprice. 
Thiersch  {Die  Kircke  irn  apost.  Zeitalter , p.  227,  third  edition,  1879)  likewise 
accepts  the  tradition  of  Tertullian,  but  assumes  a miraculous  deliverance. 

1 Rev.  11  : 7;  13  : 1 ; 17:1,  3,  5.  Comp.  Daniel’s  description  of  the  fourth 
(Roman)  beast,  “dreadful  and  terrible  and  strong  exceedingly,”  with  “ten 
horns,”  Dan.  7 : 7 sqq. 

2 Rev.  17:6. 


18  : 23.  Comp,  also  6 : 9-11. 


§ 37.  THE  NERONIAN  PERSECUTION. 


387 


number  666,  and  as  being  tlie  fifth  of  the  seven  heads  of  the 
beast  which  was  slaughtered,  but  would  return  again  from  the 
abyss  as  Antichrist.  But  this  interpretation  is  uncertain,  and 
in  no  case  can  we  attribute  to  John  the  belief  that  Nero  would 
literally  rise  from  the  dead  as  Antichrist.  lie  meant  only  that 
Nero,  the  persecutor  of  the  Christian  church,  was  (like  Antio- 
clius  Epiphanes)  the  forerunner  of  Antichrist,  who  would  be 
inspired  by  the  same  bloody  spirit  from  the  infernal  world.  In 
a similar  sense  Borne  was  a second  Babylon,  and  John  the  Bap- 
tist another  Elijah. 


Notes. 

I.  The  Accounts  op  the  Neronian  Persecution. 

1.  From  heathen  historians. 

We  have  chiefly  two  accounts  of  the  first  imperial  persecution,  from 
Tacitus,  who  was  born  about  eight  years  before  the  event,  and  probably 
survived  Trajan  (d.  117),  and  from  Suetonius,  who  wrote  his  XII.  Ccesares 
a little  later,  about  a.d.  120.  Dion  Cassius  (born  circa  a.d.  155),  in  his 
History  of  Rome  (PopaiKi)  'hrropla,  preserved  in  fragments,  and  in  the 
abridgment  of  the  monk  Xiphilinus),  from  the  arrival  of  .ZEneas  to  a.d. 
229,  mentions  the  conflagration  of  Rome,  but  ignores  the  persecutions  of 
the  Christians. 

The  description  of  Tacitus  is  in  his  terse,  pregnant,  and  graphic  style, 
and  beyond  suspicion  of  interpolation,  but  has  some  obscurities.  We 
give  it  in  full,  from  Annal,  XV.  44  : 

“But  not  all  the  relief  of  men,  nor  the  bounties  of  the  emperor,  nor 
the  propitiation  of  the  gods,  could  relieve  him  [Nero]  from  the  infamy 
of  being  believed  to  have  ordered  the  conflagration.  Therefore,  in 
order  to  suppress  the  rumor,  Nero  falsely  charged  with  the  guilt,  and 
punished  with  the  most  exquisite  tortures,  those  persons  who,  hated  for 
their  crimes,  were  commonly  called  Christians  ( suhdidit  reos,  et  qucesitis- 
simispoenis  affecit,  quos  per  fagitia  invisos  vulgus  1 Cliristianos  ’ appellabat). 
The  founder  of  that  name,  Christus , had  been  put  to  death  (supplicio 
affectus  erat)  by  the  procurator  of  Judaea,  Pontius  Pilate,  in  the  reign  of 
Tiberius  ; but  the  pernicious  superstition  [exitiabilis  super stitio),  repressed 
for  a time,1  broke  out  again,  not  only  through  Judaea,  the  source  of  this 
evil,  but  also  through  the  city  [of  Rome],  whither  all  things  vile  and 
shameful  flow  from  all  quarters,  and  are  encouraged  ( quo  cuncta  undique 

1 This  refers  either  to  the  crucifixion,  or  more  probably  to  the  edict  of  Clau- 
dius, who  banished  the  Jews  and  Jewish  Christians  from  Rome.  See  above, 
p.  363. 


388 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


atrocia  aut  •pudenda  confluunt  celebranturque).  Accordingly,  first,  those 
only  were  arrested  who  confessed. 1 Next,  on  their  information,  a vast 
multitude  (multitudo  ingens) , were  convicted,  not  so  much  of  the  crime  oi 
incendiarism  as  of  hatred  of  the  human  race  (odio  liumani  generis).*  And 
in  their  deaths  they  were  made  the  subjects  of  sport ; for  they  were  wrap- 
ped in  the  hides  of  wild  beasts  and  tom  to  pieces  by  dogs,  or  nailed  to 
crosses,  or  set  on  fire,  and  when  day  declined,  were  burned  to  serve  for 
nocturnal  lights  (in  usum  noctumi  luminis  urerentur).  Nero  had  offered 
his  own  gardens  [on  the  Vatican]  for  this  spectacle,  and  also  exhibited  a 
chariot  race  on  the  occasion,  now  mingling  in  the  crowd  in  the  dress  of  a 
charioteer,  now  actually  holding  the  reins.  Whence  a feeling  of  com- 
passion arose  towards  the  sufferers,  though  justly  held  to  be  odious, 
because  they  seemed  not  to  be  cut  off  for  the  public  good,  but  as  victims 
to  the  ferocity  of  one  man.” 

The  account  of  Suetonius,  Nero,  c.  16,  is  very  short  and  unsatisfac- 
tory : “ Afflicti  suppliciis  Christiani , genus  hominum  superstitionis  novae  ac 
maleficce.”  He  does  not  connect  the  persecution  with  the  conflagration, 
but  with  police  regulations. 

Juvenal,  the  satirical  poet,  alludes,  probably  as  an  eye-witness,  to  the 
persecution,  like  Tacitus,  with  mingled  feelings  of  contempt  and  pity  for 
the  Christian  sufferers  (Sat.  I.  155)  : 

“ Dar’st  tliou  speak  of  Tigellinus’  guilt  ? 

Thou  too  shalt  shine  like  those  we  saw 
Stand  at  the  stake  with  throat  transfixed 
Smoking  and  burning.  ” 

2.  From  Christians. 

Clement  op  Rome,  near  the  close  of  the  first  century,  must  refer  to  the 
Neronian  persecution  when  he  writes  of  the  “ vast  multitude  of  the  elect  ” 
who  suffered  “ many  indignities  and  tortures,  being  the  victims  of  jeal- 
ousy ; ” and  of  Christian  women  who  were  made  to  personate  “ Danaides  ” 
and  “ Dirces,”  Ad  Corinth.,  c.  6.  I have  made  no  use  of  this  passage  in 
the  text.  Renan  amplifies  and  weaves  it  into  his  graphic  description  of 
the  persecution  (L* Antechrist,  pp.  163  sqq.,  almost  literally  repeated  in 
his  Hibbert  Lectures ).  According  to  the  legend,  Dirce  was  bound  to  a 
raging  bull  and  dragged  to  death.  The  scene  is  represented  in  the  famous 

1 Confessed  what  ? Probably  the  Christian  religion,  which  was  already  re- 
garded as  a sort  of  crime.  If  they  confessed  to  be  guilty  of  incendiarism, 
they  must  have  been  either  weak  neophytes  who  could  not  stand  the  pain  of 
the  torture,  or  hired  scoundrels. 

* This  is  to  be  understood  in  the  active  sense  of  the  reputed  enmity  to  man- 
kind, with  which  Tacitus  charges  the  Jews  also  in  almost  the  same  terms 
(“ Adversus  omnes  alios  hostile  odium,"  Hist.  V.  5).  But  Thiersch  and  others 
explain  it  of  the  hatred  of  mankind  towards  the  Christians  (comp.  Matt.  10 : 
22,  4<  Ye  shall  be  hated  of  all  men  for  my  name’s  sake  ”). 


§ 37.  THE  NERONIAN  PERSECUTION. 


389 


marble  group  in  the  mnsenm  at  Naples.  Bnt  the  Danaides  can  fnrnish 
no  suitable  parallel  to  Christian  martyrs,  unless,  as  Renan  suggests,  Nero 
had  the  sufferings  of  the  Tartarus  represented.  Lightfoot,  following 
the  bold  emendation  of  Wordsworth  (on  Theocritus,  XXVI.  1),  rejects 
the  reading  Aai/mSfs  kq\  Aipiccu  (which  is  retained  in  all  editions,  includ- 
ing that  of  Gebhardt  and  Hamack),  and  substitutes  for  it  mm'Ser,  nat&la- 
Km,  so  that  Clement  would  say : “ Matrons  (ywaiiccs),  maidens,  slave-girls , 
being  persecuted,  after  suffering  cruel  and  unholy  insults,  safely  reached 
the  goal  in  the  race  of  faith,  and  received  a noble  reward,  feeble  though 
they  were  in  body.” 

Tertullian  (d.  about  220)  thus  alludes  to  the  Neronian  persecution, 
Ad  Nationes , I.  ch.  7 : “ This  name  of  ours  took  its  rise  in  the  reign  of 
Augustus  ; under  Tiberius  it  was  taught  with  all  clearness  and  publicity ; 
under  Nero  it  was  ruthlessly  condemned  ( sub  Nerone  damnatio  invaluit), 
and  you  may  weigh  its  worth  and  character  even  from  the  person  of  its 
persecutor.  If  that  prince  was  a pious  man,  then  the  Christians  are 
impious ; if  he  was  just,  if  he  was  pure,  then  the  Christians  are  unjust 
and  impure  ; if  he  was  not  a public  enemy,  we  are  enemies  of  our  coun- 
try : what  sort  of  men  we  are,  our  persecutor  himself  shows,  since  he  of 
course  punished  what  produced  hostility  to  himself.  Now,  although 
every  other  institution  which  existed  under  Nero  has  been  destroyed, 
yet  this  of  ours  has  firmly  remained — righteous,  it  would  seem,  as  being 
unlike  the  author  [of  its  persecution].” 

Sulpicius  Severus,  Chron.  II.  28,  29,  gives  a pretty  full  account,  but 
mostly  from  Tacitus.  He  and  Orosius  (Hist.  VII.  7)  first  clearly  assert 
that  Nero  extended  the  persecution  to  the  provinces. 


II.  Nero’s  Return  as  Antichrist. 

Nero,  owing  to  his  youth,  beauty,  dash,  and  prodigality,  and  the  start- 
ling novelty  of  his  wickedness  (Tacitus  calls  him  “ incredihilium  cupitor," 
Ann.  XV.  42),  enjoyed  a certain  popularity  with  the  vulgar  democracy  of 
Rome.  Hence,  after  his  suicide,  a rumor  spread  among  the  heathen 
that  he  was  not  actually  dead,  but  had  fled  to  the  Parthians,  and  would 
return  to  Rome  with  an  army  and  destroy  the  city.  Three  impostors 
under  his  name  used  this  belief  and  found  support  during  the  reigns  of 
Otho,  Titus,  and  Domitian.  Even  thirty  years  later  Domitian  trembled 
at  the  name  of  Nero.  Tacit.,  Hist.  I.  2 ; II.  8,  9 ; Sueton.,  Ner.  57  ; Dio 
Cassius,  LXTV.  9 ; Schiller,  l.  c.,  p.  288. 

Among  the  Christians  the  rumor  assumed  a form  hostile  to  Nero. 
Lactantius  (He  Mort.  Persecui.,  c.  2)  mentions  the  Sibylline  saying  that, 
as  Nero  was  the  first  persecutor,  he  would  also  be  the  last,  and  precede 
the  advent  of  Antichrist.  Augustin  (He  Civit.  Hei,  XX.  19)  mentions 
that  at  his  time  two  opinions  were  still  current  in  the  church  about  Nero : 
some  supposed  that  he  would  rise  from  the  dead  as  Antichrist,  others 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


390 

that  he  was  not  dead,  but  concealed,  and  would  live  until  he  should  be 
revealed  and  restored  to  his  kingdom.  The  former  is  the  Christian,  the 
latter  the  heathen  belief.  Augustin  rejects  both.  Sulpicius  Severus 
( Ghron .,  II.  29)  also  mentions  the  belief  ( unde  creditur)  that  Nero,  whose 
deadly  wound  was  healed,  would  return  at  the  end  of  the  world  to  work 
out  “ the  mystery  of  lawlessness”  predicted  by  Paul  (2  Thess.  2 : 7). 

Some  commentators  make  the  Apocalypse  responsible  for  this  absurd 
rumor  and  false  belief,  while  others  hold  that  the  writer  shared  it  with 
his  heathen  contemporaries.  The  passages  adduced  are  ch.  17:8:  “ The 
beast  was,  and  is  not,  and  is  about  to  come  up  out  of  the  abyss  and  to  go 
into  perdition  ” . . . “ the  beast  was,  and  is  not,  and  shall  be  present  ” 
(feat  ndpearai,  not  Ka'nrcp  carlv,  “ and  yet  is,”  as  the  E.  Y.  reads  with  the 
text,  rec.)  ; 17  : 11 : “ And  the  beast  that  was,  and  is  not,  is  himself  also 
an  eighth,  and  is  of  the  seven  ; and  he  goeth  into  perdition ; ” and  13  : 3 : 
“ And  I saw  one  of  his  heads  as  though  it  had  been  smitten  unto  death  ; 
and  his  death-stroke  was  healed  : and  the  whole  world  wondered  after 
the  beast.” 

But  this  is  said  of  the  beast,  i.  e.,  the  Homan  empire,  which  is  through- 
out clearly  distinguished  from  the  seven  heads,  i.  e .,  the  emperors.  In 
Daniel,  too,  the  beast  is  collective.  Moreover,  a distinction  must  be 
made  between  the  death  of  one  ruler  (Nero)  and  the  deadly  wound  which 
thereby  was  inflicted  on  the  beast  or  the  empire,  but  from  which  it  re- 
covered (under  Vespasian). 


§ 38.  The  Jewish,  War  and  the  Destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

A.D.  70. 

“And  as  He  went  forth  out  of  the  temple,  one  of  his  disciples  saith  unto 
Him,  Master,  behold,  what  manner  of  stones  and  what  manner  of  buildings  ! 
And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Seest  thou  these  great  buildings  ? T here  shall  not 
be  left  here  one  stone  upon  another , which  shall  not  be  thrown  down." — Mark 
13:1,  2. 

Sources. 

Josephus  : Bell.  Jud .,  in  7 books ; and  Vita , c.  4-74.  The  history  of  the 
Jewish  war  was  written  by  him  as  eye-witness  about  a.d.  75.  English 
translations  by  W.  Whiston,  in  Works  of  Jos.,  and  by  Rob.  Traill, 
ed.  by  Isaac  Taylor,  new  ed.,  Lond.,  1862.  German  translations  by 
Gfrorer  and  W.  Hoffmann,  Stuttgart,  1836 ; and  Paret,  Stuttg., 
1855;  French  translations  by  Arnauld  d’Andilly,  1667,  Joachim 
Gillet,  1756,  and  AbbC  Glaire,  1846. 

Rabbinical  traditions  in  Derenbourg  : Histoire  de  la  Palestine  depuis 
Cyrus  jusquyd  Adrien.  Paris,  1867  (first  part  of  his  TJ  Histoire  et  la 
geographic  de  la  Palestine  d’apres  les  Thalmuds  et  les  autres  sources 
rabbiniques),  pp.  255-295. 


§ 38.  THE  JEWISH  WAR, 


391 


Tacitus  : Hist.,  II.  4 ; V.  1-13.  A mere  fragment,  full  of  errors  and  in- 
sults towards  the  vanquished  Jews.  The  fifth  book,  except  this 
fragment,  is  lost.  While  Josephus,  the  Jew,  is  filled  with  admiration 
for  the  power  and  greatness  of  Rome,  Tacitus,  the  heathen,  treats 
Jews  and  Christians  with  scorn  and  contempt,  and  prefers  to  derive 
his  information  from  hostile  Egyptians  and  popular  prejudice  rather 
than  from  the  Scriptures,  and  Philo,  and  Josephus. 

Sulpicius  Severus  : Chronicon,  II.  30  (p.  84,  ed.  Halm).  Short. 

Literature. 

Melman  : The  History  of  the  Jews , Books  XIY.-XYII.  (New  York  ed., 
vol.  II.,  219  sqq.). 

Ewald  : Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  VI.  705-753  (second  ed.). 

Geatz  : Geschichte  der  Juden,  III.  336-414. 

Hitzig  : Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  II.  594-629. 

IjEwtn  : The  Siege  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus.  With  the  Journal  of  a recent 
Visit  in  the  Holy  City,  and  a general  Sketch  of  the  Topography  of  Jeru- 
salem from  the  Earliest  Times  down  to  the  Siege.  London,  1863. 
Count  de  Chajipagny  : Rome  et  la  Judee  au  temps  de  la  chute  de  Neron 
( ans  66-72  apres  Jesus- Christ),  2.  ed.,  Paris,  1865.  T.  I.,  pp.  195- 
254;  T.  II.,  pp.  55-200. 

Charles  Merivale  : History  of  the  Romans  under  the  Empire,  ch.  LIX. 

(vol.  VI.,  415  sqq.,  4th  ed.,  New  York,  1866). 

De  Saulcy  : Les  derniers  jours  de  Jerusalem.  Paris,  1866. 

E.  Renan  : I! Antechrist  (ch.  X.-XX.,  pp.  226-551).  Paris,  second  ed., 
1873. 

Emil  Schurer  : Lehrbuch  der  Neutestamentlichen  Zeitgeschichte  (Leipzig, 
1874;,  pp.  323-350.  He  also  gives  the  literature. 

A.  Hausrath  : Neutestamentliche  Zeitgeschichte,  Part  III.,  second  ed., 
Heidelberg,  1875,  pp.  424-487. 

Alfred  J.  Church  : The  Story  of  the  Last  Days  of  Jerusalem , from  Jose- 
phus. With  illustrations.  London,  1880. 

There  is  scarcely  another  period  in  history  so  full  of  vice, 
corruption,  and  disaster  as  the  six  years  between  the  Neronian 
persecution  and  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  The  prophetic 
description  of  the  last  days  by  our  Lord  began  to  be  fulfilled 
before  the  generation  to  which  he  spoke  had  passed  away,  and 
the  day  of  judgment  seemed  to  be  close  at  hand.  So  the  Chris- 
tians believed  and  had  good  reason  to  believe.  Even  to  earnest 
heathen  minds  that  period  looked  as  dark  as  midnight.  AVe 
have  elsewhere  quoted  Seneca’s  picture  of  the  frightful  moral 


392 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


depravity  and  decay  under  the  reign  of  Nero,  his  pupil  and 
murderer.  Tacitus  begins  his  history  of  Home  after  the  death 
of  Nero  with  these  words:  “I  proceed  to  a work  rich  in  disas- 
ters, full  of  atrocious  battles,  of  discord  and  rebellion,  yea,  hor- 
rible even  in  peace.  Four  princes  [Galba,  Otho,  Yitellius, 
Domitian]  killed  by  the  sword ; three  civil  wars,  several  foreign 
wars;  and  mostly  raging  at  the  same  time.  Favorable  events 
in  the  East  [the  subjugation  of  the  Jews],  unfortunate  ones  in 
the  West.  Illyria  disturbed,  Gaul  uneasy;  Britain  conquered 
and  soon  relinquished ; the  nations  of  Sarmatia  and  Suevia  rising 
against  us ; the  Parthians  excited  by  the  deception  of  a pseudo- 
Nero.  Italy  also  weighed  down  by  new  or  oft-repeated  calami- 
ties ; cities  swallowed  up  or  buried  in  ruins ; Home  laid  waste 
by  conflagrations,  the  old  temples  burned  up,  even  the  capitol 
set  on  fire  by  citizens ; sanctuaries  desecrated  ; adultery  rampant 
in  high  places.  The  sea  filled  with  exiles ; the  rocky  islands 
contaminated  with  murder.  Still  more  horrible  the  fury  in  the 
city.  Nobility,  riches,  places  of  honor,  whether  declined  or 
occupied,  counted  as  crimes,  and  virtue  sure  of  destruction.  ” 1 

The  Approaching  Doom. 

The  most  unfortunate  country  in  that  period  was  Palestine, 
where  an  ancient  and  venerable  nation  brought  upon  itself  un- 
speakable suffering  and  destruction.  The  tragedy  of  Jerusalem 
prefigures  in  miniature  the  final  judgment,  and  in  this  light  it 
is  represented  in  the  eschatological  discourses  of  Christ,  who 
foresaw  the  end  from  the  beginning. 

The  forbearance  of  God  with  his  covenant  people,  who  had 
crucified  their  own  Saviour,  reached  at  last  its  limit.  As  many 
as  could  be  saved  in  the  usual  way,  were  rescued.  The  mass  of 
the  people  had  obstinately  set  themselves  against  all  improve- 
ment. James  the  Just,  the  man  who  was  fitted,  if  any  could 
be,  to  reconcile  the  Jews  to  the  Christian  religion,  had  been 
stoned  by  his  hardened  brethren,  for  whom  he  daily  interceded 


1 Hist.  I.  c.  2. 


§ 38.  THE  JEWISH  WAR. 


393 


In  the  temple ; and  with  him  the  Christian  community  in  Jeru- 
salem had  lost  its  importance  for  that  city.  The  hour  of  the 
‘‘great  tribulation”  and  fearful  judgment  drew  near.  The 
prophecy  of  the  Lord  approached  its  literal  fulfilment : Jerusa- 
lem was  razed  to  the  ground,  the  temple  burned,  and  not  one 
stone  was  left  upon  another.1 

Not  long  before  the  outbreak  of  the  Jewish  war,  seven  years 
before  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  (a.d.  63),  a peasant  by  the  name 
of  Joshua,  or  Jesus,  appeared  in  the  city  at  the  Feast  of  Taberna- 
cles, and  in  a tone  of  prophetic  ecstasy  cried  day  and  night  on 
the  street  among  the  people : “ A voice  from  the  morning,  a 
voice  from  the  evening ! A voice  from  the  four  winds ! A 
voice  of  rain  against  Jerusalem  and  the  Temple ! A voice 
against  the  bridegrooms  and  the  brides  ! A voice  against  the 
whole  people  ! Woe,  woe  to  Jerusalem ! ” The  magistrates,  ter- 
rified by  this  woe,  had  the  prophet  of  evil  taken  up  and  scourged. 
He  offered  no  resistance,  and  continued  to  cry  his  “Woe.”  Be- 
ing brought  before  the  procurator,  Albinus,  he  was  scourged 
till  his  bones  could  be  seen,  but  interposed  not  a word  for  him- 
self ; uttered  no  curse  on  his  enemies ; simply  exclaimed  at 
every  blow  in  a mournful  tone:  “Woe,  woe  to  Jerusalem!” 
To  the  governor’s  question,  who  and  whence  he  was,  Jie  answered 
nothing.  Finally  they  let  him  go,  as  a madman.  But  he  con- 
tinued for  seven  years  and  five  months,  till  the  outbreak  of  the 
war,  especially  at  the  three  great  feasts,  to  proclaim  the  ap- 
proaching fall  of  Jerusalem.  During  the  siege  he  was  singing 
his  dirge,  for  the  last  time,  from  the  wall.  Suddenly  he  added  : 
“Woe,  woe  also  to  me!” — and  a stone  of  the  Homans  hurled 
at  his  head  put  an  end  to  his  prophetic  lamentation.3 

The  Jewish  Rebellion. 

Under  the  last  governors,  Felix,  Festus,  Albinus,  and  Florus, 
moral  corruption  and  the  dissolution  of  all  social  ties,  but  at  the 
same  time  the  oppressiveness  of  the  Homan  yoke,  increased  every 

1 Matt.  24:1,  2;  Mark  13:1;  Luke  19:43,  44;  21:6. 

8 Jos  , B.  Jud.,  YI.  5,  3 sqq. 


394 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


year.  After  tiie  accession  of  Felix,  assassins,  called  “Sicari 
ans  ” (from  sica,  a dagger),  armed  with  daggers  and  purchasable 
for  any  crime,  endangering  safety  in  city  and  country,  roamed 
over  Palestine.  Besides  this,  the  party  spirit  among  the  Jews 
themselves,  and  their  hatred  of  their  heathen  oppressors,  rose 
to  the  most  insolent  political  and  religious  fanaticism,  and  was 
continually  inflamed  by  false  prophets  and  Messiahs,  one  of 
whom,  for  example,  according  to  Josephus,  drew  after  him  thirty 
thousand  men.  Thus  came  to  pass  what  our  Lord  had  predicted  : 
“ There  shall  arise  false  Christs,  and  false  prophets,  and  shall 
lead  many  astray.” 

At  last,  in  the  month  of  May,  a.d.  66,  under  the  last  procu- 
rator, Gessius  FI  or  us  (from  65  onward),  a wicked  and  cruel 
tyrant  who,  as  Josephus  says,  was  placed  as  a hangman  over 
evil-doers,  an  organized  rebellion  broke  out  against  the  Homans, 
but  at  the  same  time  a terrible  civil  war  also  between  different 
parties  of  the  revolters  themselves,  especially  between  the  Zeal- 
ots and  the  Moderates,  or  the  Radicals  and  Conservatives.  The 
ferocious  party  of  the  Zealots  had  all  the  fire  and  energy  which 
religious  and  patriotic  fanaticism  could  inspire  ; they  have  been 
justly  compared  with  the  Montagnards  of  the  French  Revolu- 
tion. They  gained  the  ascendancy  in  the  progress  of  the  war, 
took  forcible  possession  of  the  city  and  the  temple  and  intro- 
duced a reign  of  terror.  They  kept  up  the  Messianic  expecta- 
tions of  the  people  and  hailed  every  step  towards  destruction  as 
a step  towards  deliverance.  Reports  of  comets,  meteors,  and 
all  sorts  of  fearful  omens  and  prodigies  were  interpreted  as 
signs  of  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  and  his  reign  over  the  hea- 
then. The  Romans  recognized  the  Messiah  in  Yespasian  and 
Titus. 

To  defy  Rome  in  that  age,  without  a single  ally,  was  to  defy 
the  world  in  arms ; but  religious  fanaticism,  inspired  by  the  re- 
collection of  the  heroic  achievements  of  the  Maccabees,  blinded 
the  Jews  against  the  inevitable  failure  of  this  mad  and  desperate 
revolt. 


§ 38.  THE  JEWISH  WAR. 


305 


The  Homan  Invasion. 

The  emperor  Nero,  informed  of  the  rebellion,  sent  his  most 
famous  general,  Vespasian,  with  a large  force  to  Palestine 


Vespasian  opened  the  campaign  in  the  year  67  from  the  Syrian 
port-town,  Ptolemais  (Acco),  and  against  a stout  resistance  over- 
ran Galilee  with  an  army  of  sixty  thousand  men.  But  events 


396 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


in  Rome  hindered  him  from  completing  the  victory,  and  re- 
quired him  to  return  thither.  Nero  had  killed  himself.  The 
emperors,  Galba,  Otho,  and  Yitellius  followed  one  another  in 
rapid  succession.  The  latter  was  taken  out  of  a dog’s  kennel  in 
Rome  while  drunk,  dragged  through  the  streets,  and  shamefully 
put  to  death.  Vespasian,  in  the  year  69,  was  universally  pro- 
claimed emperor,  and  restored  order  and  prosperity. 

Ilis  son,  Titus,  who  himself  ten  years  after  became  emperor, 
and  highly  distinguished  himself  by  his  mildness  and  philan- 
thropy,1 then  undertook  the  prosecution  of  the  Jewish  war,  and 
became  the  instrument  in  the  hand  of  God  of  destroying  the  holy 
city  and  the  temple.  He  had  an  army  of  not  less  than  eighty 
thousand  trained  soldiers,  and  planted  liis  camp  on  Mount  Scopus 
and  the  adjoining  Mount  Olivet,  in  full  view  of  the  city  and  the 
temple,  which  from  this  height  show  to  the  best  advantage.  The 
valley  of  the  Ivedron  divided  the  besiegers  from  the  besieged. 

In  April,  a.d.  70,  immediately  after  the  Passover,  when  Jeru- 
salem was  filled  with  strangers,  the  siege  began.  The  zealots  re- 
jected, with  sneering  defiance,  the  repeated  proposals  of  Titus 
and  the  prayers  of  Josephus,  who  accompanied  him  as  interpreter 
and  mediator ; and  they  struck  down  every  one  who  spoke  of  sur- 
render. They  made  sorties  down  the  valley  of  the  Kedron  and 
up  the  mountain,  and  inflicted  great  loss  on  the  Romans.  As 
the  difficulties  multiplied  their  courage  increased.  The  cruci- 
fixion of  hundreds  of  prisoners  (as  many  as  five  hundred  a day) 
only  enraged  them  the  more.  Even  the  famine  which  began 
to  rage  and  sweep  away  thousands  daily,  and  forced  a woman 
to  roast  her  own  child,5  the  cries  of  mothers  and  babes,  the  most 

1 The  people  called  him  Amor  et  Delicice  generis  liumani.  He  was  bom  De- 
cember 30,  a.d.  40,  and  died  September  13,  81.  He  ascended  the  throne  79, 
in  the  year  when  the  towns  of  Herculaneum,  Stabise,  and  Pompeii  were  de- 
stroyed. His  reign  was  marked  by  a series  of  terrible  calamities,  among 
which  was  a conflagration  in  Rome  which  lasted  three  days,  and  a plague 
which  destroyed  thousands  of  victims  daily.  He  made  earnest  efforts  to 
repair  the  injuries,  and  used  to  say,  when  a day  passed  without  an  act  of 
philanthropy,  “ Amici,  diem  per didi."  See  Suetonius,  Titus. 

- Josephus,  VI.  3,  4,  gives  a full  account  of  this  horrible  and  most  unnatu* 
ral  incident 


§ 38.  THE  JEWISH  WAR. 


397 


pitiable  scenes  of  misery  around  them,  could  not  move  the  crazy 
fanatics.  History  records  no  other  instance  of  such  obstinate 
resistance,  such  desperate  bravery  and  contempt  of  death.  The 
Jews  fought,  not  only  for  civil  liberty,  life,  and  their  native 
land,  but  for  that  which  constituted  their  national  pride  and 
glory,  and  gave  their  whole  history  its  significance — for  their 
religion,  which,  even  in  this  state  of:  horrible  degeneracy,  infused 
into  them  an  almost  superhuman  power  of  endurance. 


The  Destruction  of  the  City  and  the  Temple. 

At  last,  in  July,  the  castle  of  Antonia  was  surprised  and  taken 
by  night.  This  prepared  the  way  for  the  destruction  of  the 
Temple  in  which  the  tragedy  culminated.  The  daily  sacrifices 
ceased  July  17th,  because  the  hands  were  all  needed  for  defence. 
The  last  and  the  bloodiest  sacrifice  at  the  altar  of  burnt  offer- 
ings was  the  slaughter  of  thousands  of  Jews  who  had  crowded 
around  it. 

Titus  (according  to  Josephus)  intended  at  first  to  save  that 
magnificent  work  of  architecture,  as  a trophy  of  victory,  and 
perhaps  from  some  superstitious  fear;  and  when  the  flames 
threatened  to  reach  the  Holy  of  Holies  he  forced  his  way 
through  flame  and  smoke,  over  the  dead  and  dying,  to  arrest  the 
fire.1  But  the  destruction  was  determined  by  a higher  decree. 
Ilis  own  soldiers,  roused  to  madness  by  the  stubborn  resist- 
ance, and  greedy  of  the  golden  treasures,  could  not  be  restrained 
from  the  work  of  destruction.  At  first  the  halls  around  the 

1 Josephus  is,  however,  not  quite  consistent ; he  says  first  that  Titus,  per- 
ceiving that  his  endeavors  to  spare  a foreign  temple  turned  to  the  damage  of 
his  soldiers,  commanded  the  gates  to  be  set  on  fire  (VI.  4,  1) ; and  then,  that 
on  the  next  day  he  gave  orders  to  extinguish  it  (§  3,  6,  and  37).  Sulpicius 
Severus  (II.  30)  makes  Titus  responsible  for  the  destruction,  who  thought 
that  it  would  make  an  end  both  to  the  Jewish  and  the  Christian  religion. 
This  is  defended  by  Stange,  De  Titi  imperatoris  vita , P.  I.,  1870,  pp.  39-43, 
but  doubted  by  Schiirer,  l.  c.  p.  346.  Renan  (511  sqq  ).  following  Bemays, 
Ueber  die  Chronik  des  Sulpicius  Scv.,  1861,  p.  48,  believes  that  Sulpicius  drew 
his  aocount  from  the  lost  portion  of  the  Histories  of  Tacitus,  and  that  Titus 
neither  ordered  nor  forbade  the  burning  of  the  Temple,  but  left  it  to  its  fate, 
with  a prudent  reservation  of  his  motives.  So  also  Thiersch,  p.  224. 


398 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


temple  were  set  on  fire.  Then  a firebrand  was  hurled  through 
the  golden  gate.  When  the  flames  arose  the  Jews  raised  a 
hideous  veil  and  tried  to  put  out  the  fire  ; while  others,  clinging 
with  a last  convulsive  grasp  to  their  Messianic  hopes,  rested  in 
the  declaration  of  a false  prophet,  that  God  in  the  midst  of  the 
conflagration  of  the  Temple  would  give  a signal  for  the  deliver- 
ance of  his  people.  The  legions  vied  with  each  other  in  feed- 
ing the  flames,  and  made  the  unhappy  people  feel  the  full  force 
of  their  unchained  rage.  Soon  the  whole  prodigious  structure 
was  in  a blaze  and  illuminated  the  skies.  It  was  burned  on  the 
tenth  of  August,  a.d.  70,  the  same  day  of  the  year  on  which, 
according  to  tradition,  the  first  temple  was  destroyed  by  Nebu- 
chadnezzar. “ No  one,”  says  Josephus,  “ can  conceive  a louder, 
more  terrible  shriek  than  arose  from  all  sides  during  the  burn- 
ing of  the  temple.  The  shout  of  victory  and  the  jubilee  of  the 
legions  sounded  through  the  wailings  of  the  people,  now  sur- 
rounded with  fire  and  sword,  upon  the  mountain,  and  throughout 
the  city.  The  echo  from  all  the  mountains  around,  even  to 
Peraea  (?),  increased  the  deafening  roar.  Yet  the  misery  itself 
was  more  terrible  than  this  disorder.  The  hill  on  which  the 
temple  stood  was  seething  hot,  and  seemed  enveloped  to  its  base 
in  one  sheet  of  flame.  The  blood  was  larger  in  quantity  than 
the  fire,  and  those  that  were  slain  more  in  number  than  those 
that  slew  them.  The  ground  was  nowhere  visible.  All  was 
covered  with  corpses  ; over  these  heaps  the  soldiers  pursued  the 
fugitives.” 1 

The  Homans  planted  their  eagles  on  the  shapeless  ruins,  over 
against  the  eastern  gate,  offered  their  sacrifices  to  them,  and 
proclaimed  Titus  Imperator  with  the  greatest  acclamations  of 
joy.  Thus  was  fulfilled  the  prophecy  concerning  the  abomina- 
tion of  desolation  standing  in  the  holy  place.” 3 

Jerusalem  was  razed  to  the  ground ; only  three  towers  of  the 
palace  of  Herod — Hippicus  (still  standing),  Phasael,  and  Mari- 

1 B.  J.,  VI.  5, 1. 

* Daniel,  9 : 27  ; Matt.  24:15;  comp.  Luke  21  : 20 ; Josephus,  B.  Jud .,  VI. 
6,  1. 


§ 38.  TI1E  JEWISH  WAR. 


399 


jimne — together  with  a portion  of  the  western  wall,  were  left  as 
monuments  of  the  strength  of  the  conquered  city,  once  the  cen- 
tre of  the  Jewish  theocracy  and  the  cradle  of  the  Christian 
Church. 

Even  the  heathen  Titus  is  reported  to  have  publicly  declared 
that  God,  by  a special  providence,  aided  the  Homans  and  drove 
the  Jews  from  their  impregnable  strongholds.1  Josephus,  who 
went  through  the  war  himself  from  beginning  to  end,  at  first  as 
governor  of  Galilee  and  general  of  the  Jewish  army,  then  as  a 
prisoner  of  Vespasian,  finally  as  a companion  of  Titus  and 
mediator  between  the  Homans  and  Jews,  recognized  in  this 
tragical  event  a divine  judgment  and  admitted  of  his  degener- 
ate countrymen,  to  whom  he  was  otherwise  sincerely  attached : 
“ I will  not  hesitate  to  say  what  gives  me  pain  : I believe  that, 
had  the  Homans  delayed  their  punishment  of  these  villains,  the 
city  would  have  been  swallowed  up  by  the  earth,  or  overwhelmed 
with  a flood,  or,  like  Sodom,  consumed  with  fire  from  heaven. 
For  the  generation  which  was  in  it  was  far  more  ungodly  than 
the  men  on  whom  these  punishments  had  in  former  times  fallen. 
By  their  madness  the  whole  nation  came  to  be  ruined.”  2 

Thus,  therefore,  must  one  of  the  best  Homan  emperors  exe- 
cute the  long  threatened  judgment  of  God,  and  the  most  learned 
Jew  of  his  time  describe  it,  and  thereby,  without  willing  or 
knowing  it,  bear  testimony  to  the  truth  of  the  prophecy  and  the 
divinity  of  the  mission  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  rejection  of  whom 
brought  all  this  and  the  subsequent  misfortune  upon  the  apos- 
tate race. 

The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  would  be  a worthy  theme  for 
the  genius  of  a Christian  Homer.  It  has  been  called  “the 
most  soul-stirring  struggle  of  all  ancient  history.”  3 But  there 
was  no  Jeremiah  to  sing  the  funeral  dirge  of  the  city  of  David 
and  Solomon.  The  Apocalypse  was  already  written,  and  had 
predicted  that  the  heathen  “ shall  tread  the  holy  city  under  foot 

1 B Jud.,  VI.  9,  1.  Titus  is  said  to  have  approved  such  passages  (Jos.  Vita, 

65). 

* B.  Jud. , V.  13,  6. 


* Merivale,  l.  c.,  p.  445. 


400 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


forty  and  two  months.”  1 One  of  the  master  artists  of  modern 
times,  Kaulbach,  lias  made  it  the  subject  of  one  of  his  greatest 
paintings  in  the  museum  at  Berlin.  It  represents  the  burning 
temple : in  the  foreground,  the  high-priest  burying  his  sword  in 
his  breast ; around  him,  the  scenes  of  heart-rending  suffering ; 
above,  the  ancient  prophets  beholding  the  fulfilment  of  their 
oracles ; beneath  them,  Titus  with  the  Homan  army  as  the  un- 
conscious executor  of  the  Divine  wrath ; below,  to  the  left, 
Ahasuerus,  the  Wandering  Jew  of  the  mediseval  legend,  driven 
by  furies  into  the  undying  future ; and  to  the  right  the  group  of 
Christians  departing  in  peace  from  the  scene  of  destruction,  and 
Jewish  children  imploring  their  protection. 


The  Fate  of  the  Survivors,  and  the  Triumph  in  Home. 

After  a siege  of  five  months  the  entire  city  was  in  the  hands 
of  the  victors.  The  number  of  the  Jews  slain  during  the  siege, 
including  all  those  who  had  crowded  into  the  city  from  the 
country,  is  stated  by  Josephus  at  the  enormous  and  probably 
exaggerated  figure  of  one  million  and  one  hundred  thousand. 
Eleven  thousand  perished  from  starvation  shortly  after  the  close 
of  the  siege.  Ninety-seven  thousand  were  carried  captive  and 
sold  into  slavery,  or  sent  to  the  mines,  or  sacrificed  in  the  gladia- 
torial shows  at  Caesarea,  Berytus,  Antioch,  and  other  cities.  The 
strongest  and  handsomest  men  were  selected  for  the  triumphal 
procession  in  Home,  among  them  the  chief  defenders  and  leaders 
of  the  revolt,  Simon  Bar-Giora  and  John  of  Gischala.  7 

Vespasian  and  Titus  celebrated  the  dearly  bought  victory  to- 
gether (71).  No  expense  was  spared  for  the  pageant.  Crowned 
with  laurel,  and  clothed  in  purple  garments,  the  two  conquerors 

1 Apoc.  11  : 2;  comp.  Luke,  21 : 24.  In  Dan.  7 : 25  ; 9 : 27  ; 12  : 7,  the 
duration  of  the  oppression  of  the  Jewish  people  is  given  as  seven  half-years 
(=  42  months). 

2 B.  Jud.  VI.  9,  2-4.  Milman  (II.  388)  sums  up  the  scattered  statements 
of  Josephus,  and  makes  out  the  total  number  of  killed,  from  the  beginning  to 
the  close  of  the  war,  to  be  1,356,460,  and  the  total  number  of  prisoners 
101,700. 


§ 38.  THE  JEWISH  WAR. 


401 


rode  slowly  in  separate  chariots,  Domitian  on  a splendid  charger, 
to  the  temple  of  Jupiter  Capitolinas,  amid  the  shouts  of  the  peo- 
ple and  the  aristocracy.  They  were  preceded  by  the  soldiers  in 
festive  attire  and  seven  hundred  Jewish  captives.  The  images 
of  the  gods,  and  the  sacred  furniture  of  the  temple — the  table 
of  show-bread,  the  seven-armed  candlestick,  the  trumpets  which 
announced  the  year  of  jubilee,  the  vessel  of  incense,  and  the  rolls 
of  the  Law — were  borne  along  in  the  procession  and  deposited  in 
the  newly  built  Temple  of  Peace,1  except  the  Law  and  the  pur- 
ple veils  of  the  holy  place,  which  Yespasian  reserved  for  his 
palace.  Simon  Bar-Giora  was  thrown  down  from  the  Tarpeian 
Bock ; John  of  Gischala  doomed  to  perpetual  imprisonment. 
Coins  were  cast  with  the  legend  Judaea  cajpta , Judaza  devicta. 
But  neither  Yespasian  nor  Titus  assumed  the  victorious  epithet 
Judaeus • they  despised  a people  which  had  lost  its  father- 
land. 

Josephus  saw  the  pompous  spectacle  of  the  humiliation  and 
wholesale  crucifixion  of  his  nation,  and  described  it  without  a 
tear.2  The  thoughtful  Christian,  looking  at  the  representation 
of  the  temple  furniture  borne  by  captive  Jews  on  the  triumphal 
arch  of  Titus,  still  standing  between  the  Colosseum  and  the 
Forum,  is  filled  with  awe  at  the  fulfilment  of  divine  prophecy. 

The  conquest  of  Palestine  involved  the  destruction  of  the 
Jewish  commonwealth.  Yespasian  retained  the  land  as  his  pri- 
vate property  or  distributed  it  among  his  veterans.  The  people 
were  by  the  five  years’  war  reduced  to  extreme  poverty,  and  left 

1 The  Temple  of  Peace  was  afterwards  burned  under  Commodus,  and  it  is 
not  known  what  became  of  the  sacred  furniture. 

2 B.  Jud .,  VII.  5,  5-7.  Josephus  was  richly  rewarded  for  his  treachery. 
Vespasian  gave  him  a house  in  Rome,  an  annual  pension,  the  Roman  citizen- 
ship, and  large  possessions  in  Judaea.  Titus  and  Domitian  continued  the 
favors.  But  his  countrymen  embittered  his  life  and  cursed  his  memory.  Jost 
and  other  Jewish  historians  speak  of  him  with  great  contempt.  King  Agrippa. 
the  last  of  the  Idumaean  sovereigns,  lived  and  died  an  humble  and  contented 
vassal  of  Rome,  in  the  third  year  of  Trajan,  A.D.  100.  His  licentious  sister, 
Berenice,  narrowly  escaped  the  fate  of  a second  Cleopatra.  The  conquering 
Titus  was  conquered  by  her  sensual  charms,  and  desired  to  raise  her  to  the 
Imperial  throne,  but  the  public  dissatisfaction  forced  him  to  dismiss  her, 
11 invitus  invitam”  Suet.,  Tit.  7.  Comp.  Schiirer,  l.  <57  321,322. 


402 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


without  a magistrate  (in  the  Jewish  sense),  without  a temple, 
without  a country.  The  renewal  of  the  revolt  under  the  false 
Messiah,  Bar-Cocheba,  led  only  to  a still  more  complete  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  and  devastation  of  Palestine  by  the  army  of 
Hadrian  (132-135).  But  the  Jews  still  had  the  law  and  the 
prophets  and  the  sacred  traditions,  to  which  they  cling  to  this 
day  with  indestructible  tenacity  and  with  the  hope  of  a great 
future.  Scattered  over  the  earth,  at  home  everywhere  and  no- 
where; refusing  to  mingle  their  blood  with  any  other  race, 
dwelling  in  distinct  communities,  marked  as  a peculiar  people  in 
every  feature  of  the  countenance,  in  every  rite  of  religion ; 
patient,  sober,  and  industrious;  successful  in  every  enterprise, 
prosperous  in  spite  of  oppression,  ridiculed  yet  feared,  robbed 
yet  wealthy,  massacred  yet  springing  up  again,  they  have  out- 
lived the  persecution  of  centuries  and  are  likely  to  continue  to 
live  to  the  end  of  time : the  object  of  the  mingled  contempt, 
admiration,  and  wonder  of  the  world. 

§ 39.  Effects  of  the  Destruction  of  Jerusalem  on  the  Christian 

Church . 

The  Christians  of  Jerusalem,  remembering  the  Lord’s  admo- 
nition, forsook  the  doomed  city  in  good  time  and  fled  to  the 
town  of  Pella  in  the  Decapolis,  beyond  the  Jordan,  in  the  north 
of  Peraea,  where  king  Herod  Agrippa  II.,  before  whom  Paul 
once  stood,  opened  to  them  a safe  asylum.  An  old  tradition 
says  that  a divine  voice  or  angel  revealed  to  their  leaders  the 
duty  of  flight.1  There,  in  the  midst  of  a population  chiefly  Gen- 
tile, the  church  of  the  circumcision  was  reconstructed.  Unfor- 
tunately, its  history  is  hidden  from  us.  But  it  never  recovered 
its  former  importance.  When  Jerusalem  was  rebuilt  as  a 
Christian  city,  its  bishop  was  raised  to  the  dignity  of  one  of  the 
four  patriarchs  of  the  East,  but  it  was  a patriarchate  of  honor, 

1 In  Eusebius,  H.  2?.,  III.  5 : Hard  nva  x°V<rl to?V  avrd^i  SoKifiois  Si'  ivo/ca- 
kvxf/fus  ii cSo&cma.  Comp.  Epiphnnius,  De  pond,  et  mein.  c.  15,  and  the  warning 
of  Christ,  Matt.  24:  15  sq.  Eusebius  puts  the  fTjrhti  to  Pella  before  the  war 
(ir pb  rov  ttu\4/aou),  or  four  years  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 


§ 39.  EFFECTS  OF  DESTRUCTION  OF  JERUSALEM.  403 

not  of  power,  and  sank  to  a mere  shadow  after  the  Moham- 
medan invasion. 

The  awful  catastrophe  of  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  theoc- 
racy must  have  produced  the  profoundest  sensation  among  the 
Christians,  of  which  we  now,  in  the  absence  of  all  particular  in- 
formation respecting  it,  can  hardly  form  a true  conception.1  It 
was  the  greatest  calamity  of  Judaism  and  a great  benefit  to 
Christianity ; a refutation  of  the  one,  a vindication  and  emanci- 
pation of  the  other.  It  not  only  gave  a mighty  impulse  to  faith, 
but  at  the  same  time  formed  a proper  epoch  in  the  history  of 
the  relation  between  the  two  religious  bodies.  It  separated  them 
forever.  It  is  true  the  apostle  Paul  had  before  now  inwardly 
completed  this  separation  by  the  Christian  universality  of  his 
whole  system  of  doctrine ; but  outwardly  he  had  in  various  ways 
accommodated  himself  to  Judaism,  and  had  more  than  once 
religiously  visited  the  temple.  He  wished  not  to  appear  as  a 
revolutionist,  nor  to  anticipate  the  natural  course  of  history, 
the  ways  of  Providence.5  But  now  the  rupture  was  also  out- 
wardly consummated  by  the  thunderbolt  of  divine  omnipotence. 
God  himself  destroyed  the  house,  in  which  he  had  thus  far  dwelt, 
in  which  Jesus  had  taught,  in  which  the  apostles  had  prayed  ; he 
rejected  his  peculiar  people  for  their  obstinate  rejection  of  the 
Messiah ; he  demolished  the  whole  fabric  of  the  Mosaic  theocracy, 
whose  system  of  worship  was,  in  its  very  nature,  associated  ex- 
clusively with  the  tabernacle  at  first  and  afterwards  with  the  tem- 
ple ; but  in  so  doing  he  cut  the  cords  which  had  hitherto  bound, 
and  according  to  the  law  of  organic  development  necessarily  bound 
the  infant  church  to  the  outward  economy  of  the  old  covenant, 
and  to  Jerusalem  as  its  centre.  Henceforth  the  heathen  could 
no  longer  look  upon  Christianity  as  a mere  sect  of  Judaism,  but 
must  regard  and  treat  it  as  a new,  peculiar  religion.  The  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem,  therefore,  marks  that  momentous  crisis 
at  which  the  Christian  church  as  a whole  burst  forth  forever 
from  the  chrysalis  of  Judaism,  awoke  to  a sense  of  its  maturity, 

1 It  is  alluded  to  in  the  Ep.  of  Barnabas,  cap.  16. 

* Comp.  1 Cor.  7 : 18  sqq.  ; Acts  21  : 26  sqq. 


404 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A. I).  1-100. 


and  in  government  and  worship  at  once  took  its  independent 
stand  before  the  world.1 

This  breaking  away  from  hardened  Judaism  and  its  religious 
forms,  however,  involved  no  departure  from  the  spirit  of  the 
Old  Testament  revelation.  The  church,  on  the  contrary,  en- 
tered into  the  inheritance  of  Israel.  The  Christians  appeared 
as  genuine  Jews,  as  spiritual  children  of  Abraham,  who,  follow- 
ing the  inward  current  of  the  Mosaic  religion,  had  found  Him, 
who  was  the  fulfilment  of  the  law  and  the  prophets ; the  per- 
fect fruit  of  the  old  covenant  and  the  living  germ  of  the  new ; 
the  beginning  and  the  principle  of  a new  moral  creation. 

It  now  only  remained  to  complete  the  consolidation  of  the 
church  in  this  altered  state  of  things ; to  combine  the  premises 
in  their  results ; to  take  up  the  conservative  tendency  of  Peter 
and  the  progressive  tendency  of  Paul,  as  embodied  respectively 
in  the  Jewisli-Christian  and  the  Gentile-Christian  churches,  and 
to  fuse  them  into  a third  and  higher  tendency  in  a permanent 
organism  ; to  set  forth  alike  the  unity  of  the  two  Testaments  in 
diversity,  and  their  diversity  in  unity  ; and  in  this  way  to  wind 
up  the  history  of  the  apostolic  church. 

This  was  the  work  of  John,  the  apostle  of  completion. 

1 Dr.  Richard  Rothe  (Die  Anfdnge  der  Christl.  Kirche , p.  341  sqq.).  Thiersch 
(p.  225),  Ewald  (VII.  26),  Renan  ( L'Anlechr .,  p.  545),  and  Liglitf oot  ( Gal , p. 
301)  ascribe  the  same  significance  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Ewald 
says:  “As  by  one  great  irrevocable  stroke  the  Christian  congregation  was 
separated  from  the  Jewish,  to  which  it  had  heretofore  clung  as  a new,  vigor- 
ous offshoot  to  the  root  of  the  old  tree  and  as  the  daughter  to  the  mother.” 
He  also  quotes  the  newly  discovered  letter  of  Serapion,  written  about  75,  as 
showing  the  effect  which  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  exerted  on  thoughtful 
minds.  See  above,  p.  171. 


406 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

ST.  JOHN,  AND  THE  LAST  STADIUM  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  PERIOD. 
THE  CONSOLIDATION  OF  JEWISH  AND  GENTILE  CHRISTIANITY. 

K a\  6 \6yos  <rhp%  iyepero  ical  i<rKT)pa><rep  ip  rpiip , Ka\  i&eeurd/ie&a  tt)p  8o£ap  avrov. 

—John  1 : 14. 

§ 40.  The  Johannecm  Literature . 

I.  Sources. 

1.  The  Gospel , Epistles , and  Revelation  of  John.  The  notices  of  John  in 

the  Synoptical  Gospels,  in  the  Acts,  and  in  Gal.  2 : 9.  (See  th« 
passages  in  Young’s  Analytical  Concordance .) 

2.  Patristic  traditions.  Iren^eus:  Adv.  Haer.  II.  22,  5 (John  lived  to 

the  age  of  Trajan)  ; III.  1, 1 (John  at  Ephesus) ; III.  3,  4 (John  and 
Cerinthus) ; V.  30,  3 (John  and  the  Apocalypse).  Clemens  Alex.  : 
Quis  dives  salvus , c.  42  (John  and  the  young  robber).  Polycp.ates 
of  Ephesus  in  Eus.  Hist.  Eccl.,  III.  31 ; Y.  24  (John,  one  of  the  peyaXa 
crroiyeia,  and  a iepevs  to  neraXop  ne(f)opr)<dos ).  Tertullian  : De  praescr. 
haer.,  c.  36  (the  legend  of  John’s  martyrdom  in  Rome  by  being 
steeped  in  oil,  and  his  miraculous  preservation).  Eusebius  : Hist. 
Eccl.,  III.  chs.  18,  23,  31 ; IV.  14 ; V.  24  (the  paschal  controversy). 
Jerome  : Ad  Gal.  6 : 10  (the  last  words  of  John) ; De  vir.  ill.,  c.  9. 
Augustin  : Tract.  124  in  Evang.  Joann.  ( Opera  III.  1970,  ed.  Migne). 
Nicephorus  Cal.  : Hist.  Eccl.,  II.  42. 

II.  Apocryphal  Traditions. 

Acta  Joh.annis,  ed.  Const.  Tischendorf,  in  his  Acta  Apost.  Apocr.,  Lips., 
1851,  pp.  266-276.  Comp.  Prolegg.  LXXIII.  sqq.,  where  the 
patristic  testimonies  on  the  apocryphal  Acts  of  John  are  collected. 
Acta  Joannis,  unter  Benutzung  von  C.  v.  Tischendoi'f’s  Nachlass  bear- 
beitet  von  Theod.  Zahn.  Erlangen,  1880  (264  pages  and  clxxii.  pages 
of  Introd.). 

The  “ Acta  ” contain  the  npd£eis  rov  . . . *1  iouppov  rov  SeoXdyov  by 
Prochorus,  who  professes  to  be  one  of  the  Seventy  Disciples,  one  of 
the  Seven  Deacons  of  Jerusalem  (Acts  6 : 5),  and  a pupil  of  St. 
John;  and  fragments  of  the  n cpioboi  'Icodppov,  “the  Wanderings  of 


§ 40.  THE  JOHANNEAN  LITERATURE. 


407 


John,”  by  Leucius  Charinus,  a friend  and  pupil  of  John.  The  former 
work  is  a religious  romance,  written  about  400  years  after  the  death 
of  John  ; the  latter  is  assigned  by  Zahn  to  an  author  in  Asia  Minor 
before  160,  and  probably  before  140 ; it  uses  the  fourth  as  well  as 
the  Synoptical  Gospels,  and  so  far  has  some  apologetic  value.  See 
p.  cxlviii. 

Max  Bonnet,  the  French  philologist,  promises  a new  critical  edi- 
tion of  the  Acts  of  John.  See  E.  Leroux’s  “ Revue  critique,”  1880, 
p.  449. 

Apocalypsis  Johannis,  in  Tischendorf’s  Apocalypses  Apocryphce  Mosis , 
Esdrce , Pauli , Johannis,  item  Mariae  Dormitio.  Lips.,  1866,  pp. 
70-94. 

This  pseudo -Johannean  Apocalypse  purports  to  have  been  writ- 
ten shortly  after  the  ascension  of  Christ,  by  St.  John,  on  Mount 
Tabor.  It  exists  in  MS.  from  the  ninth  century,  and  was  first  edited 
by  A.  Birch,  1804. 

On  the  legends  of  St.  John  comp.  Mrs.  Jameson  : Sacred  and 
Legendary  Arty  I.  157-172,  fifth  edition. 

III.  Biographical  and  Critical. 

Francis  Trench  : Life  and  Character  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist.  London, 
1850. 

Dean  Stanley  (d.  1881)  : Sermons  and  Essays  on  the  Apostolic  Age. 
Oxford  and  London,  1847,  third  ed.,  1874,  pp.  234-281. 

Max  Krenkel  : Per  Apostel  Johannes.  Leipzig,  1871. 

James  M.  Macdonald  : The  Life  and  Writings  of  St.  John.  With  Intro 
duction  by  Dean  Howson.  New  York,  1877  (new  ed.  1880). 

Weizsacker  : Das  Apost.  Zeitalter.  1886,  pp.  493-559. 

Comp,  the  biographical  sketches  in  the  works  on  the  Apostolic  Church, 
mentioned  g 20  (p.  189) ; and  the  Introductions  to  the  Commen- 
taries of  Lucre,  Meyer,  Lange,  Luthardt,  Godet,  Westcopi 
Plummer. 


TV.  Doctrinal. 

The  Johannean  type  of  doctrine  is  expounded  by  Neander  (in  his  work 
on  the  Apost.  Age,  4th  ed.,  1847 ; E.  transl.  by  Robinson,  N.  York, 
1865,  pp.  508-531) ; Frommann  (Der  Johann  eische  Lehrbegriff , Leipz., 
1839) ; C.  Reinh.  Kostlin  ( Der  Lehrbegriff  des  Ev.  und  der  Brief e 
Johannis,  Berlin,  1843) ; Reuss  (Die  johann.  Theologie,  in  the  Stras- 
burg  “Beitrage  zu  den  theol.  Wissenschaften,”  1847,  in  La  Theologie 
johannique , Paris,  1879,  and  in  his  Theology  of  the  Apost.  Age,  2d 
ed.  1860,  translated  from  the  third  French  ed.  by  Annie  Harwood, 
Lond.  1872-74,  2 vols.) ; Schmid  (in  his  Bibl.  Theol.  des  N.  T., 
Stuttg.  1853) ; Baur  (in  Vorlesungen  iiber  iV.  T.  Theol.,  Leipz.  1864) ; 


408 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Hilgenfeld  (1849  and  1863) ; B.  Weiss  (Der  Johann eische  Lehrbegriff, \ 
Berlin,  1862,  and  in  his  Bibl.  Theol.  des  AT.  T .,  4th  ed.  1884).  There 
are  also  special  treatises  on  John’s  Logos-doctrine  and  Christology 
by  Weizsacker  (1862),  Beyschlag  (1866),  and  others. 

V.  Commentaries  on  the  Gosper  of  John. 

The  Literature  on  the  Gospel  of  John  and  its  genuineness,  from  1792  to 
1875  (from  Evanson  to  Luthardt),  is  given  with  unusual  fulness  and 
accuracy  by  Dr.  Caspar  Rene  Gregory  (an  American  scholar),  in  an 
appendix  to  his  translation  of  Luthardt’s  St.  John , the  Author  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel.  Edinb.  1875,  pp.  283-360.  Comp,  also  the  very 
careful  lists  of  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot  (down  to  1869)  in  the  article  John, 
Gospel  of,  in  the  Am.  ed.  of  Smith’s  “ Diet,  of  the  Bible,”  I.  1437- 
1439. 

Origen  (d.  254) ; Chrysostom  (407) ; Augustin  (430) ; Cyril  of 
Alexandria  (444) ; Calvin  (1564) ; Lampe  (1724,  3 vols.)  ; Bengel 
(Gnomon,  1752) ; Lucke  (1820,  3d  ed.  1843);  Olshausen  (1832,  4th 
ed.  by  Ebrard,  1861)  ; Tholuck  (1827,  7th  ed.  1857) ; Hengsten- 
berg  (1863,  2d  ed.  1867  ; Eng.  transl.  1865)  ; Luthardt  (1852,  2d  ed. 
entirely  rewritten  1875 ; Eng.  transl.  by  Gregory,  in  2 vols.,  and  a 
special  volume  on  the  Authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  1875) ; 
De  Wette-Bruckner  (5th  ed.  1863) ; Meyer  (5th  and  last  ed.  of 
Meyer,  1869 ; 6th  ed.  by  Weiss,  1880) ; Ewald  (1861) ; Alford  (6th 
ed.  1868 ; Wordsworth  (5th  ed.  1866),  Godet  (1865,  2 vols.,  2d 
ed.  1877,  Eng.  transl.  in  3 vols.  ; 3d  edition,  Paris,  1881,  trsl.  by  T. 
Dwight,  1886)  ; Lange  (as  translated  and  enlarged  by  Schaff,  N.  Y. 
and  Edinb.  1871)  ; Watkins  (in  Ellicott’s  “ N.  T.  Com.  for  English 
Readers,”  1878)  ; Westcott  (in  “ Speaker’s  Commentary,”  1879,  and 
separately) ; Milligan  and  Moulton  (in  “ SchafTs  Popul.  Com.,” 
1880) ; Keil  (1881) ; Plummer  (1881) ; Thoma  (Die  Genesis  des  Joh.- 
Evangeliums , 1882) ; Paul  Schanz  (Tubingen,  1885). 

VI.  Special  Treatises  on  the  Genuineness  and  Credibility  of  the 

Fourth  Gospel. 

We  have  no  room  to  give  .all  the  titles  of  books,  or  the  pages  in  the  introductions  to 
Commentaries,  and  refer  to  the  lists  of  Abbot  and  Gregory. 

a.  Writers  against  the  Genuineness  : 

E.  Evanson  ( The  Dissonance  of  the  Four  generally  received  Evan- 
gelists, Gloucester,  1792).  K.  G.  Bretschneider  (Probabilia  de  Ev. 
et  Ep.  Joh.  Ap.  Indole  et  Origine , Leips.  1820,  refuted  by  Schott,  Eich- 
horn,  Lucke,  and  others  ; retracted  by  the  author  himself  in  1828), 
D.  F.  Strauss  (in  his  Leben  Jesu,  1835  ; withdrawn  in  the  3ded.  1838, 
but  renewed  in  the  4th,  1840 ; and  in  his  Leben  Jesu  fur  das  deutsche 


§ 40.  THE  J Oil  ANNE  AN  LITERATURE. 


409 


Volk , 1864) ; Lutzelberger  (1840) ; Bruno  Bauer  (1840). — F.  Chr. 
Baur  (first  in  a very  acute  and  ingenious  analysis  of  the  Gospel,  in  the 
“Theol.  Jahrbiicher,”  of  Tubingen,  1844,  and  again  in  1847,  1848, 
1853,  1855,  1859).  He  represents  the  fourth  Gospel  as  the  ripe  result 
of  a literary  development,  or  evolution,  which  proceeded,  according 
to  the  Hegelian  method,  from  thesis  to  antithesis  and  synthesis,  or 
from  Judaizing  Petrinism  to  anti- Jewish  Paulinism  and  (pseudo-) 
Johannean  reconciliation.  He  was  followed  by  the  whole  Tubingen 
School;  Zeller  (1845,  1847,  1853);  Schwegler  (1846);  Hilgenfeld 
(1849, 1854, 1855, 1875) ; Volkmar  (1870, 1876)  ; Schenkel  (1864  and 
1873);  Holtzmann  (in  Schenkel's  “ Bibellexikon,”  1871,  and  Ein- 
leitung , 1886). — Keim  ( Gesch . Jesu  v.  Nazar  a,  since  1867,  vol.  I., 
146  sqq.  ; 167  sqq.,  and  in  the  3d  ed.  of  his  abridgement,  1875,  p.  40) ; 
Hausrath  (1874) ; Mangold  (in  the  4th  ed.  of  Bleek’s  Introd.,  1886) ; 
Thoma  (1882).  In  Holland,  Scholten  (Leyden,  1865,  and  again 
1871).  In  England,  J.  J.  Tayler  (London,  1867) ; Samuel  Davidson 
(in  the  new  ed.  of  his  Introduction  to  the  N.  T.,  1868,  II.  323  sqq. 
and  357  sqq.) ; the  anonymous  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  (vol. 
II.  251  sqq.,  of  the  6th  ed.,  London,  1875) ; and  E.  A.  A.  (Edwin 
A.  Abbott,  D.D.,  of  London,  in  art.  Gospels , “Encycl.  Brit.,”  vol. 
X.,  1879,  pp.  818-843). 

The  dates  assigned  to  the  composition  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  by 
these  opponents  vary  from  110  to  170,  but  the  best  scholars  among 
them  are  more  and  more  forced  to  retreat  from  170  (Baur’s  date)  to 
130  (Keim),  or  to  the  very  beginning  of  the  second  century  (110). 
This  is  fatal  to  their  theory ; for  at  that  time  many  of  the  personal 
friends  and  pupils  of  John  must  have  been  still  living  to  prevent  a 
literary  fiction  from  being  generally  accepted  in  the  church  as  a 
genuine  work  of  the  apostle. 

Reuss  (in  his  Theologie  johannique , 1879,  in  the  sixth  part  of  his 
great  work,  “La  Bible”  and  in  the  sixth  edition  of  his  Geschichte 
der  heil.  Schri/ten  N.  T.,  1887,  pp.  249  sqq.)  leaves  the  question 
undecided,  though  inclining  against  the  Johannean  authorship. 
Sabatier,  who  had  formerly  defended  the  authenticity  (in  his  Essai 
sur  les  sources  de  la  vie  de  Jesus , 1866),  follows  the  steps  of  Reuss, 
and  comes  to  a negative  conclusion  (in  his  art.  Jean  in  Licliten- 
berger’s  “Encycl.  des  Sciences  Relig.,”  Tom.  VII.,  Paris,  1880,  pp. 
173  sqq.). 

Weisse  (1836),  Schweizer  (1841),  Weizsacker  (1857,  1859,  1862, 
1886),  Hase  (in  his  Geschichte  Jesu>  1875,  while  in  his  earlier  writ- 
ings he  had  defended  the  genuineness),  and  Renan  (1863,  1867,  and 
1879)  admit  genuine  portions  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  but  differ 
among  themselves  as  to  the  extent.  Some  defend  the  genuineness 
of  the  discourses,  but  reject  the  miracles.  Renan,  on  the  contrary, 
favors  the  historical  portions,  but  rejects  the  discourses  of  Christ,  in 


410 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


a special  discussion  in  the  13th  ed.  of  his  Vie  de  Jesus , pp.  477  sqq. 
He  changed  his  view  again  in  his  Eeglise  chretienne , 1879,  pp.  47 
sqq.  “ Ce  qui  par  ait  le  plus  probable”  he  says,  “ c’est  qu'un  disciple 
de  I’apdtre,  depositaire  de  plusieurs  de  ses  souvenirs,  se  crut  autorise  d 
parler  en  son  nom  et  a ecrire , vingt-cinq  ou  trente  ans  apres  sa  mort,  ce 
que  Von  regrettait  qu'il  rieut  pas  lui-meme  fixe  de  son  vivant.”  He  is 
disposed  to  ascribe  the  composition  to  the  “ Presbyter  John  ” 
(whose  very  existence  is  doubtful)  and  to  Aristion,  two  Ephesian 
disciples  of  John  the  Apostle.  In  characterizing  the  discourses  in 
the  Gospel  of  John  he  shows  his  utter  incapacity  of  appreciating 
its  spirit.  Matthew  Arnold  ( God  and  the  Bible , p.  248)  conjectures 
that  the  Ephesian  presbyters  composed  the  Gospel  with  the  aid  of 
materials  furnished  by  John. 

It  should  be  remarked  that  Baur  and  his  followers,  and  Renan, 
while  they  reject  the  authenticity  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  strongly 
defend  the  J ohannean  origin  of  the  Apocalypse,  as  one  of  the  certain 
documents  of  the  apostolic  age.  But  Keim,  by  denying  the  whole 
tradition  of  John’s  sojourn  at  Ephesus,  destroys  the  foundation  of 
Baur’s  theory. 

b.  The  genuineness  has  been  defended  by  the  following  writers  : 

Jos.  Priestley  (Unitarian,  against  Evanson,  1793).  Schleier- 
macher  and  his  school,  especially  Lucre  (1820  and  1840),  Bleek 
(1846  and  1862),  and  De  Wette  (after  some  hesitation,  1837, 5th  ed., 
by  Briickna',  1863).  Credner  (1836)  ; Neander  (Leben  Jesu,  1837)  ; 
Tholuck  (in  Glaubva iirdigkeit  der  evang.  Geschichte,  against  Strauss, 
1837 ) ; Andrews  Norton  (Unitarian,  in  Evidences  of  the  Genuine- 
ness of  the  Gospels , 1837-1844,  3 vols.,  2d  ed.  1846,  abridged  ed., 
Boston,  1875) ; Ebrard  (1845,  against  Baur ; again  1861,  1868, 
and  1880,  in  Herzog’s  “ Encykl.”)  ; Thiersch  (1845,  against  Baur) ; 
Schneider  (1854) ; Hengstenberg  (1863) ; Astie  (1863) ; Hofstede  de 
Groot  ( Basilides , 1863 ; Germ,  transl.  1868) ; Van  Oosterzee  (against 
Scholten,  Germ.  ed.  1867 ; Engl,  transl.  by  Hurst) ; Tischendorp 
( Warm  wurden  unsere  Evangelien  verfasst  ? 1865,  4th  ed.  1866 ; also 
translated  into  English,  but  very  poorly) ; Riggenbach  (1866,  against 
Volkmar).  Meyer  (Corn.,  5th  ed.  1869)  ; Weiss  (6th  ed.  of  Meyer, 
1880) ; Lange  (in  his  Leben  Jesu , and  in  his  Com.,  3d  ed.  1868,  trans- 
lated and  enlarged  by  Schaff,  1871)  ; Sanday  ( Authorship  and  His- 
torical Character  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  London,  1872) ; Beyschlag 
(in  the  “Studien  und  Kritiken”  for  1874  and  1875);  Luthardt 
(2d  ed.  1875)  ; Lightfoot  (in  the  “ Contemporary  Review,”  1875- 
1877,  against  Supernatural  Religion)  ; Geo.  P.  Fisher  ( Beginnings 
of  Christianity,  1877,  ch.  X.,  and  art.  The  Fourth  Gospel,  in  “The 
Princeton  Review  ” for  July,  1881,  pp.  51-84) ; Godet  ( Commentaire 
sur  VEvangile  de  Saint  Jean,  2d  ed.  1878  ; 3d  ed.  “ complement 
revue,”  vol.  L,  Introduction  historique  et  antique , Paris,  1881,  37 6 


§ 40.  THE  JOIIANNEAN  LITERATURE. 


411 


pages) ; Westcott  ( Introd . to  the  Gospels , 1862, 1875,  and  Com.  1879) ; 
McClellan  ( The  Four  Gospels , 1875) ; Milligan  (in  several  articles 
in  the  “Contemp.  Review”  for  1867,  1868,  1871,  and  in  his  and 
Moulton’s  Com.,  1880) ; Ezra  Abbot  ( The  Authorship  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel , Boston,  1880 ; republished  in  his  Critical  Essays , Boston, 
1888 ; conclusive  on  the  external  evidences,  especially  the  important 
testimony  of  Justin  Martyr) ; George  Salmon  ( Historical  Introd.  to 
the  N.  T7.,  London,  1886  ; third  ed.  1888,  pp.  210  sqq.).  See  also  A. 
H.  Franke:  Das  Alte  Test,  bei  Johannes , Gottingen,  1885. 


VLLL  Commentaries  on  the  Epistles  of  John. 

Oecumenius  (1000) ; Theophylact  (1071)  ; Luther  ; Calvin  ; Bullin- 
ger  ; Lucre  (3d  ed.  1856) ; De  Wette  (1837,  5th  ed.  by  Bruckner, 
1863)  ; Neander  (1851,  Engl,  transl.  by  Mrs.  Conant,  1852) ; Dus- 
terdieck  1852-1856,  2 vols.) ; Huther  (in  Meyer’s  Com.,  1855,  4th 
ed.  1880)  ; F.  D.  Maurice  (1857)  ,*  Ebrard  (in  Olshausen’s  Com., 
1859,  transl.  by  W.  B.  Pope,  Edinb.  1860) ; Ewald  (1861) ; Braune 
(in  Lange’s  Com.,  1865,  Engl.  ed.  by  Mombert,  1867) ; Candlish 
(1866)  ; Erich  Haupt  (1869,  Engl,  transl.  by  W.  B.  Pope,  Edinb., 
1879) ; R.  Rothe  (posthumous  ed.  by  K.  Muhlhausen 1879) ; W.  B. 
Pope  (in  Schaff’s  Pop.  Com.,  1883)  ; Westcott  (1883). 

IX.  Commentaries  on  the  Apocalypse  of  John. 

Bullinger  (1535,  6th  ed.  1604);  Grottos  (1644);  Jos.  Mede  ( Claris 
Apocalyptica,  1682) ; Bossuet  (R.  C.,  1689) ; Vitringa  (1719) ; Ben- 
gel  (1740,  1746,  and  new  ed.  1834)  ; Herder  (1779) ; Eichhorn 
(1791);  E.  P.  Elliott  (Horce  Apocalyptica ?,  or,  a Com.  on  the  Apoc., 
5th  ed.,  Lond.,  1862,  4 vols.)  ; Lucre  (1852) ; Ewald  (1828  and 
1862)  ; Zullig  (1834  and  1840) ; Moses  Stuart  (1845,  2 vols.) ; De 
Wette  (1848,  3d  ed.  1862) ; Alford  (3d  ed.  1866) ; Hengstenberg 
(1849  and  1861) ; Ebrard  (1853)  ; Auberlen  (Der  Prophet  Daniel 
und  die  Offenbarung  Johannis,  1854  ; Engl,  transl.  by  Ad.  Saphir, 
1856,  2d  Germ.  ed.  1857) ; Dusterdieck  (1859,  3d  ed.  1877) ; Bleek 
(1820  and  1862)  ; Luthardt  (1861) ; Volkmar  (1862)  ; Kienlen 
(1870) ; Lange  (1871,  Am.  ed.,  with  large  additions  by  Craven, 
1874)  ; Cowles  (1871) ; Gebhardt  ( Der  Lehrbegriff  der  Apocalypse, 
1873 ; Engl,  transl.,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Apocalypse , by  J.  Jefferson, 
1878) ; Kliefoth  (1874) ; Lee  (1882) ; Milligan  (in  Schaff’s  Intemat . 
Com.,  1883,  and  in  Lectures  on  the  Revel.,  1886)  ; Spitta  (1889).  Vol- 
ter  (1882)  and  Vischer  (1886)  deny  the  unity  of  the  book.  Yischer 
makes  it  a Jewish  Apocalypse  worked  over  by  a Christian,  in  spite 
of  the  warning,  22  : 18,  19,  which  refutes  this  hypothesis. 


412 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


§ 41.  Life  omd  Character  of  John. 

“ Volat  avis  sine  meta , 

(Juo  nec  vates  nec  propheta 
Evolavit  altius  : 

Tam  implenda  quam  impleta , 

Numquam  vidit  tot  secreta 
Purus  homo  purius .” 

(Adam  of  St.  Victor.) 

The  Mission  of  John. 

Peter,  the  Jewish  apostle  of  authority,  and  Paul,  the  Gentile 
apostle  of  freedom,  had  done  their  work  on  earth  before  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem — had  done  it  for  their  age  and  for  all 
ages  to  come ; had  done  it,  and  by  the  influence  of  their  writ- 
ings are  doing  it  still,  in  a manner  that  can  never  be  superseded. 
Both  were  master-builders,  the  one  in  laying  the  foundation, 
the  other  in  rearing  the  superstructure,  of  the  church  of  Christ, 
against  which  the  gates  of  Hades  can  never  prevail. 

But  there  remained  a most  important  additional  work  to  be 
done,  a work  of  union  and  consolidation.  This  was  reserved 
for  the  apostle  of  love,  the  bosom-friend  of  Jesus,  who  had  be- 
come his  most  perfect  reflection  so  far  as  any  human  being  can 
reflect  the  ideal  of  divine-human  purity  and  holiness.  John 
was  not  a missionary  or  a man  of  action,  like  Peter  and  Paul. 
He  did  little,  so  far  as  we  know,  for  the  outward  spread  of 
Christianity,  but  all  the  more  for  the  inner  life  and  growth  of 
Christianity  where  it  was  already  established.  He  has  nothing 
to  say  about  the  government,  the  forms,  and  rites  of  the  visible 
church  (even  the  name  does  not  occur  in  his  Gospel  and  first  Epis- 
tle), but  all  the  more  about  the  spiritual  substance  of  the  church 
— the  vital  union  of  believers  with  Christ  and  the  brotherly 
communion  of  believers  among  themselves.  He  is  at  once  the 
apostle,  the  evangelist,  and  the  seer,  of  the  new  covenant.  lie 
lived  to  the  close  of  the  first  century,  that  he  might  erect  on 
the  foundation  and  superstructure  of  the  apostolic  age  the 
majestic  dome  gilded  by  the  light  of  the  new  heaven. 


§ 41.  LIFE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  JOHN.  413 

He  had  to  wait  in  silent  meditation  till  the  church  was  ripe 
for  his  sublime  teaching.  This  is  intimated  by  the  mysterious 
word  of  our  Lord  to  Peter  with  reference  to  John  : “ If  I will 
that  he  tarry  till  I come,  what  is  that  to  thee  ? ” 1 No  doubt 
the  Lord  did  come  in  the  terrible  judgment  of  Jerusalem.  John 
outlived  it  personally,  and  his  type  of  doctrine  and  character 
will  outlive  the  earlier  stages  of  church  history  (anticipated 
and  typified  by  Peter  and  Paul)  till  the  final  coming  of  the 
Lord.  In  that  wider  sense  he  tarries  even  till  now,  and  his 
writings,  with  their  unexplored  depths  and  heights  still  wait  for 
the  proper  interpreter.  The  best  comes  last.  In  the  vision  of 
Elijah  on  Mount  LLoreb,  the  strong  wind  that  rent  the  moun- 
tains and  brake  in  pieces  the  rocks,  and  the  earthquake,  and 
the  fire  preceded  the  still  small  voice  of  Jehovah.2  The  owl 
of  Minerva,  the  goddess  of  wisdom,  begins  its  flight  at  twilight. 
The  storm  of  battle  prepares  the  way  for  the  feast  of  peace. 
The  great  warrior  of  the  apostolic  age  already  sounded  the  key- 
note of  love  which  was  to  harmonize  the  two  sections  of  Chris- 
tendom  ; and  John  only  responded  to  Paul  when  he  revealed 
the  inmost  heart  of  the  supreme  being  by  the  profoundest  of  all 
definitions : “ God  is  love.”  3 

John  in  the  Gospels. 

John  was  a son  (probably  the  younger  son)  of  Zebedee  and 
Salome,  and  a brother  of  the  elder  James,  who  became  the  pro- 
tomartyr of  the  apostles.4  He  may  have  been  about  ten  years 

1 John  21  : 22,  23.  Milligan  and  Moulton  in  loc.  : “ The  point  of  contrast 
between  the  words  spoken  respectively  to  Peter  and  John,  is  not  that  between 
a violent  death  by  martyrdom  and  a peaceful  departure  ; but  that  between 
impetuous  and  struggling  apostleship,  ending  in  a violent  death,  and  quiet, 
thoughtful,  meditative  waiting  for  the  Second  Coming  of  Jesus,  ending  in  a 
peaceful  transition  to  the  heavenly  repose.  Neither  Peter  nor  himself  is  to 
the  Evangelist  a mere  individual.  Each  is  a type  of  one  aspect  of  apostolic 
working — of  Christian  witnessing  for  Jesus  to  the  very  end  of  time.” 

2 1 Kings  19  : 11,  12. 

3 1 Cor.,  ch.  13  ; 1 John  4 : 8,  16. 

4 The  name  John,  from  the  Hebrew  or  i.e.,  Jehovah  is 

gracious  (comp,  the  German  Gotthold ),  implied  to  his  mind  a prophecy  of  his 


414 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


younger  than  Jesus,  and  as,  according  to  the  unanimous  testi- 
mony of  antiquity,  he  lived  till  the  reign  of  Trajan,  i.e.,  till  aftei 
98,  he  must  have  attained  an  age  of  over  ninety  years.  He 
was  a fisherman  by  trade,  probably  of  Bethsaida  in  Galilee  (like 
Peter,  Andrew,  and  Philip).  His  parents  seem  to  have  been  in 
comfortable  circumstances.  His  father  kept  hired  servants  ; his 
mother  belonged  to  the  noble  band  of  women  who  followed  Jesus 
and  supported  him  with  their  means,  who  purchased  spices  to 
embalm  him,  who  were  the  last  at  the  cross  and  the  first  at  the 
open  tomb.  J ohn  himself  was  acquainted  with  the  high  priest, 
and  owned  a house  in  Jerusalem  or  Galilee,  into  which  he  re- 
ceived the  mother  of  our  Lord.1 

He  was  a cousin  of  Jesus,  according  to  the  flesh,  from  his 
mother,  a sister  of  Mary.2  This  relationship,  together  with  the 
enthusiasm  of  youth  and  the  fervor  of  his  emotional  nature, 
formed  the  basis  of  his  intimacy  with  the  Lord. 

He  had  no  rabbinical  training,  like  Paul,  and  in  the  eyes  of 
the  Jewish  scholars  he  was,  like  Peter  and  the  other  Galilaean 
disciples,  an  “ unlearned  and  ignorant  man.” 3 But  he  passed 
through  the  preparatory  school  of  John  the  Baptist  who  summed 
up  his  prophetic  mission  in  the  testimony  to  Jesus  as  the  “Lamb 
of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,”  a testimony 
which  he  afterwards  expanded  in  his  own  writings.  It  was  this 
testimony  which  led  him  to  Jesus  on  the  banks  of  the  Jordan 
in  that  memorable  interview  of  which,  half  a century  after- 
relation to  Jesus,  the  incarnate  Jehovah  (comp.  12  : 41  with  Isa.  6 : 1),  and  is 
equivalent  to  “ the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,”  13:23;  19  : 26  ; 20  : 2 ; 21  : 7, 
20.  The  Greek  fathers  call  John  b iiri<rrr)&ios,  the  leaner  on  the  bosom,  or, 
as  we  would  say,  the  bosom-friend  (of  Jesus). 

1 Mark  1 : 20  ; 15  : 40  sq.  ; Luke  8:3;  John  19  : 27.  Godet  (I.  37)  thinks 
that  his  home  was  on  the  lake  of  Gennesareth,  and  accounts  thus  fer  his 
absence  in  Jerusalem  at  Paul’s  first  visit  (Gal.  1 : 18,  19). 

* According  to  the  correct  interpretation  of  John  19  : 25,  that  four  women 
(not  three)  are  meant  there,  as  Wieseler,  Ewald,  Meyer,  Lange,  and  other 
commentators  now  hold.  The  writer  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  from  peculiar 
delicacy,  never  mentions  his  own  name,  nor  the  name  of  his  mother,  nor 
the  name  of  the  mother  of  our  Lord  ; yet  his  mother  was  certainly  at  the 
cross,  according  to  the  Synoptists,  and  he  would  not  omit  her. 

3 Acts  4 : 13,  &v&pa>iroi  aypd/A/jiaToi  Ka\  iSuurai. 


§ 41.  LIFE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  JOHN. 


415 


wards,  lie  remembered  the  very  hour.1 2  lie  was  not  only  one  of 
the  Twelve,  but  the  chosen  of  the  chosen  Three.  Peter  stood 
out  more  prominently  before  the  public  as  the  friend  of  the 
Messiah  ; John  was  known  in  the  private  circle  as  the  friend  of 
Jesus.3  Peter  always  looked  at  the  official  character  of  Christ, 
and  asked  what  he  and  the  other  apostles  should  do  ; John  gazed 
steadily  at  the  person  of  Jesus,  and  was  intent  to  learn  what  the 
Master  said.  They  differed  as  the  busy  Martha,  anxious  to 
serve,  and  the  pensive  Mary,  contented  to  learn.  John  alone, 
with  Peter  and  his  brother  James,  witnessed  the  scene  of  the 
transfiguration  and  of  Gethsemane — the  highest  exaltation  and 
the  deepest  humiliation  in  the  earthly  life  of  our  Lord.  He 
leaned  on  his  breast  at  the  last  Supper  and  treasured  those  won- 
derful farewell  discourses  in  his  heart  for  future  use.  He  fol- 
lowed him  to  the  court  of  Caiaphas.  He  alone  of  all  the  disci- 
ples was  present  at  the  crucifixion,  and  was  intrusted  by  the 
departing  Saviour  with  the  care  of  his  mother.  This  was  a 
scene  of  unique  delicacy  and  tenderness:  the  Mater  dolorosa 
and  the  beloved  disciple  gazing  at  the  cross,  the  dying  Son 
and  Lord  uniting  them  in  maternal  and  filial  love.  It  furnishes 
the  type  of  those  heaven-born  spiritual  relationships,  which  are 
deeper  and  stronger  than  those  of  blood  and  interest.  As  John 
was  the  last  at  the  cross,  so  he  was  also,  next  to  Mary  Magda- 
lene, the  first  of  the  disciples  who,  outrunning  even  Peter, 
looked  into  the  open  tomb  on  the  resurrection  morning  ; and  he 
first  recognized  the  risen  Lord  when  he  appeared  to  the  disci- 
ples on  the  shore  of  the  lake  of  Galilee.3 

He  seems  to  have  been  the  youngest  of  the  apostles,  as  he  long 
outlived  them  all ; he  certainly  was  the  most  gifted  and  the 
most  favored.  He  had  a religious  genius  of  the  highest  order 
— not  indeed  for  planting,  but  for  watering;  not  for  outward 

1 John  1 : 35-40.  The  commentators  are  agreed  that  the  unnamed  of  the 
two  disciples  is  John.  See  my  notes  in  Lange  on  the  passage. 

2 The  well-known  distinction  made  by  Grotius  between  <f>i\6xpurros  and 
<pi\iri<rovs. 

3 John  20  : 4 ; 21  : 7. 


416 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


action  and  aggressive  work,  but  for  inward  contemplation  and 
insight  into  the  mystery  of  Christ’s  person  and  of  eternal  life  in 
him.  Purity  and  simplicity  of  character,  depth  and  ardor  of 
affection,  and  a rare  faculty  of  spiritual  perception  and  intuition, 
were  his  leading  traits,  which  became  ennobled  and  consecrated 
by  divine  grace. 

There  are  no  violent  changes  reported  in  John’s  history ; he 
grew  silently  and  imperceptibly  into  the  communion  of  his  Lord 
and  conformity  to  his  example  ; he  was  in  this  respect  the  anti- 
pode of  Paul.  He  heard  more  and  saw  more,  but  spoke  less, 
than  the  other  disciples.  He  absorbed  his  deepest  sayings, 
which  escaped  the  attention  of  others ; and  although  he  himself 
did  not  understand  them  at  first,  he  pondered  them  in  his  heart 
till  the  Holy  Spirit  illuminated  them.  His  intimacy  with  Mary 
must  also  have  aided  him  in  gaining  an  interior  view  of  the  mind 
and  heart  of  his  Lord.  He  appears  throughout  as  the  beloved 
disciple,  in  closest  intimacy  and  in  fullest  sympathy  with  the 
Lord.1 

The  Son  of  Thunder  and  the  Beloved  Disciple. 

There  is  an  apparent  contradiction  between  the  Synoptic  and 
the  Johannean  picture  of  John,  as  there  is  between  the  Apoca- 
lypse and  the  fourth  Gospel ; but  on  closer  inspection  it  is  only 
the  twofold  aspect  of  one  and  the  same  character.  We  have  a 
parallel  in  the  Peter  of  the  Gospels  and  the  Peter  of  his  Epis- 
tles : the  first  youthful,  impulsive,  hasty,  changeable,  the  other 
matured,  subdued,  mellowed,  refined  by  divine  grace. 

In  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  John  appears  as  a Son  of  Thunder 
(Boanerges).2  This  surname,  given  to  him  and  to  his  elder 

1 For  an  ingenious  comparison  between  John  and  Salome,  John  and  James, 
John  and  Andrew,  John  and  Peter,  John  and  Paul,  see  Lange’s  Com  on  John, 
pp.  4-10  (Am.  ed.). 

2 Mark  3 : 17.  Boatnjpyes  (as  Lachmann,  Tischendorf , and  Tregelles  read,  in* 
stead  of  Boavepyis),  i.e.,  viol  ppomrjs.  The  word  is  usually  derived  from 
E331  "OSl  (as  pronounced  in  the  broad  Galilean  dialect).  TliV}  means  a noisy 
crowd  of  men,  but  may  have  had  the  significance  of  thunder  in  Syriac 


§ 41.  LIFE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  JOHN. 


417 


brother  by  our  Saviour,  was  undoubtedly  an  epithet  of  honor 
and  foreshadowed  his  future  mission,  like  the  name  Peter  given 
to  Simon.  Thunder  to  the  Hebrews  was  the  voice  of  God.1  It 
conveys  the  idea  of  ardent  temper,  great  strength  and  vehem- 
ence of  character  whether  for  good  or  for  evil,  according  to  the 
motive  and  aim.  The  same  thunder  which  terrifies  does  also 
purify  the  air  and  fructify  the  earth  with  its  accompanying 
showers  of  rain.  Fiery  temper  under  the  control  of  reason  and 
in  the  service  of  truth  is  as  great  a power  of  construction  as  the 
same  temper,  uncontrolled  and  misdirected,  is  a power  of  destruc- 
tion. John’s  burning  zeal  and  devotion  needed  only  discipline 
and  discretion  to  become  a benediction  and  inspiration  to  the 
church  in  all  ages. 

In  their  early  history  the  sons  of  Zebedee  misunderstood  the 
difference  between  the  law  and  the  gospel,  when,  in  an  outburst 
of  holy  indignation  against  a Samaritan  village  which  refused 
to  receive  Jesus,  they  were  ready,  like  Elijah  of  old,  to  call  con- 
suming fire  from  heaven.2  But  when,  some  years  afterwards, 
John  went  to  Samaria  to  confirm  the  new  converts,  he  called 
down  upon  them  the  fire  of  divine  life  and  light,  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.3  The  same  mistaken  zeal  for  his  Master  was  at  the 
bottom  of  his  intolerance  towards  those  who  performed  a good 
work  in  the  name  of  Christ,  but  outside  of  the  apostolic  circle.4 
The  desire  of  the  two  brothers,  in  which  their  mother  shared, 


Robinson  derives  it  from  T3“),  which  means  tumult , alarmy  and  is  used  of  the 
roaring  noise  of  thunder,  Job  37  : 2.  The  usual  Hebrew  word  for  thunder  is 
C3n  (Ps.  77:19;  81 : 8 ; Job  26 : 14).  This  name  completely  dispels  the 
popular  notion  of  John.  “ Nichts”  says Hilgenf eld  ( Einleit .,  p.  393),  “ stimmt 
zu  den  synoptischen  Evangelien  weniger  als  jenes  madchenhafte  Johannesbild, 
noddies  unter  uns  gangbar  geworden  1st .”  Comp.  Godet’s  remarks  at  the  close 
of  this  section. 

1 “The  Lord  thundered  with  a great  thunder;”  “The  Lord  shall  send 
thunder  and  rain.”  See  Ex.  9 : 23  ; 1 Sam.  7 : 10;  12:  17,  18  ; Job  26:  14; 
Ps.  77  : 18  ; 81 : 7 ; 104:  7 ; Isa.  29  : 6,  etc. 

5 Luke  9 : 54-56.  Some  commentators  think  that  this  incident  suggested 
the  giving  of  the  name  Boanerges  ; but  that  would  make  it  an  epithet  of  cen- 
sure, which  the  Lord  would  certainly  not  fasten  upon  his  beloved  disciple. 

2 Acts  8 : 14-17. 

4 Mark  9 : 38-40 ; comp.  Luke  9 : 49,  50. 


418 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


for  the  highest  positions  in  the  Messianic  kingdom,  likewise  re* 
veals  both  their  strength  and  their  weakness,  a noble  ambition 
to  be  near  Christ,  though  it  be  near  the  fire  and  the  sword,  yet 
an  ambition  that  was  not  free  from  selfishness  and  pride,  which 
deserved  the  rebuke  of  our  Lord,  who  held  up  before  them  the 
prospect  of  the  baptism  of  blood.1 

All  this  is  quite  consistent  with  the  writings  of  John,  lie 
appears  there  by  no  means  as  a soft  and  sentimental,  but  as  a 
positive  and  decided  character.  He  had  no  doubt  a sweet  and 
lovely  disposition,  but  at  the  same  time  a delicate  sensibility, 
ardent  feelings,  and  strong  convictions.  These  traits  are  by  no 
means  incompatible.  He  knew  no  compromise,  no  division  of 
loyalty.  A holy  fire  burned  within  him,  though  he  was  moved 
in  the  deep  rather  than  on  the  surface.  In  tiie  Apocalypse, 
the  thunder  rolls  loud  and  mighty  against  the  enemies  of 
Christ  and  his  kingdom,  while  on  the  other  hand  there  are 
in  the  same  book  episodes  of  rest  and  anthems  of  peace  and 
joy,  and  a description  of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem,  which  could 
have  proceeded  only  from  the  beloved  disciple.  In  the  Gospel 
and  the  Epistles  of  John,  we  feel  the  same  power,  only  sub- 
dued and  restrained.  He  reports  the  severest  as  well  as  the 
sweetest  discourses  of  the  Saviour,  according  as  he  speaks  to  the 
enemies  of  the  truth,  or  in  the  circle  of  the  disciples.  Ho 
other  evangelist  gives  us  such  a profound  inside-view  of  the  an- 
tagonism between  Christ  and  the  Jewish  hierarchy,  and  of  the 
growing  intensity  of  that  hatred  which  culminated  in  the  bloody 
counsel ; no  apostle  draws  a sharper  line  of  demarcation  between 
light  and  darkness,  truth  and  falsehood,  Christ  and  Antichrist, 
than  John.  His  Gospel  and  Epistles  move  in  these  irreconcila- 
ble antagonisms.  He  knows  no  compromise  between  God  and 
Baal.  With  what  holy  horror  does  he  speak  of  the  traitor,  and 
the  rising  rage  of  the  Pharisees  against  their  Messiah ! How 
severely  does  he,  in  the  words  of  the  Lord,  attack  the  unbeliev- 
ing Jews  with  their  murderous  designs,  as  children  of  the  devil ! 
And,  in  his  Epistles,  he  terms  every  one  who  dishonors  his 
1 Matt.  20 : 20-24  ; comp.  Mark  10  : 35-41. 


§ 41.  LIFE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  JOHN. 


419 


Christian  profession  a liar ; every  one  who  hates  liis  brother  a 
murderer ; every  one  who  wilfully  sins  a child  of  the  devil ; 
and  lie  earnestly  warns  against  teachers  who  deny  the  mystery 
of  the  incarnation,  as  Antichrists,  and  he  forbids  even  to  salute 
them.1  The  measure  of  his  love  of  Christ  was  the  measure  of 
his  hatred  of  Antichrist.  For  hatred  is  inverted  love.  Love 
and  hatred  are  one  and  the  same  passion,  only  revealed  in  oppo- 
site directions.  The  same  sun  gives  light  and  beat  to  the  living, 
and  hastens  the  decay  of  the  dead. 

Christian  art  has  so  far  well  understood  the  double  aspect  of 
John  by  representing  him  with  a face  of  womanly  purity  and 
tenderness,  but  not  weakness,  and  giving  him  for  his  symbol  a 
bold  eagle  soaring  with  outspread  wings  above  the  clouds.2 

The  Apocalypse  and  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

A proper  appreciation  of  John’s  character  as  thus  set  forth 
removes  the  chief  difficulty  of  ascribing  the  Apocalypse  and  the 
fourth  Gospel  to  one  and  the  same  writer.3  The  temper  is  the 
same  in  both : a noble,  enthusiastic  nature,  capable  of  intense 
emotions  of  love  and  hatred,  but  with  the  difference  between 
vigorous  manhood  and  ripe  old  age,  between  the  roar  of  battle 
and  the  repose  of  peace.  The  theology  is  the  same,  including 
the  most  characteristic  features  of  Christology  and  soteriology.4 

1 John  8:44;  1 John  1 : 6,  8,  10 ; 2 : 18  sqq. ; 3 : 8,  15  ; 4:1  sqq.;  2 John 
vers.  10  and  11. 

* Jerome  {Com.  ad  Matth. , Procem.,  Opera,  ed.  Migne,  Tom.  vii.  19) : Quarta 
[facies]  Joannem  evangelistam  [ signijicat ],  qui  assumptis  pennis  aquilce , et  ad 
altiora  festinans,  de  Verbo  Dei  disputat.  An  old  epigram  says  of  John  : 

“ More  volans  aquilce  verbo  petit  astra  Joannes .” 

3 The  author  of  Supemat.  Belig II.  400,  says  : “ Instead  of  the  fierce  and 
intolerant  spirit  of  the  Son  of  Thunder,  we  find  [in  the  Fourth  Gospel]  a 
spirit  breathing  forth  nothing  but  gentleness  and  love.”  How  superficial  this 
judgment  is  appears  from  our  text. 

4 This  is  well  shown  in  Gebhardt’s  Doctrine  of  the  Apocalypse , and  is  sub- 
stantially even  acknowledged  by  those  who  deny  the  Johannean  origin  of 
either  the  Apocalypse  (the  Schleiermacher  School),  or  of  the  Gospel  (the 
Tubingen  School).  “Ps  ist  nicht  bios says  Baur  (in  his  Church  History , vol. 
I.  p.  147),  “ eine  dussere  Anlehnung  an  einen  vielgefeiei'ten  Namen , esfehlt  auch 


420 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


By  no  other  apostle  is  Christ  called  the  Logos.  The  Gospel  is 
“ the  Apocalypse  spiritualized,”  or  idealized.  Even  the  differ- 
ence of  style,  which  is  startling  at  first  sight,  disappears  on  closer 
inspection.  The  Greek  of  the  Apocalypse  is  the  most  Hebra- 
izing of  all  the  books  of  the  Hew  Testament,  as  may  be  expected 
from  its  close  affinity  with  Hebrew  prophecy  to  which  the  classi- 
cal Greek  furnished  no  parallel,  while  the  Greek  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  is  pure,  and  free  from  irregularities;  yet  after  all  John 
the  Evangelist  also  shows  the  greatest  familiarity  with,  and  the 
deepest  insight  into,  the  Hebrew  religion,  and  preserves  its 
purest  and  noblest  elements  ; and  his  style  has  all  the  childlike 
simplicity  and  sententious  brevity  of  the  Old  Testament ; it  is 
only  a Greek  body  inspired  by  a Hebrew  soul.1 

In  accounting  for  the  difference  between  the  Apocalypse  and 
the  other  writings  of  John,  we  must  also  take  into  consideration 
the  necessary  difference  between  prophetic  composition  under 
direct  inspiration,  and  historical  and  didactic  composition,  and 
the  intervening  time  of  about  twenty  years ; the  Apocalypse 
being  written  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  fourth 
Gospel  towards  the  close  of  the  first  century,  in  extreme  old 
age,  when  his  youth  was  renewed  like  the  eagle’s,  as  in  the  case 
of  some  of  the  greatest  poets,  Homer,  Sophocles,  Milton,  and 
Goethe. 

nicht  an  innern  Beruhrungspunkten  zwischen  dem  Evangelium  und  der  Apo- 
kalypse, und  man  kann  nur  die  tiefe  Genialitat  undfeine  Kunst  bewundern , mit 
welcher  der  Evangelist  die  Elements , welche  vom  Standpunkt  der  Apokalypse  avf 
den  freiern  und  holier n des  Evangeliums  hiniiberleiteten,  in  sich  aufgenommen 
hat,  um  die  Apokalypse  zum  Evangelium  zu  vergeistigen.  Nur  vom  Standpunkt 
des  Evangeliums  aus  lasst  sich  das  Verhdltniss , in  das  sich  der  Verfasser  dessel- 
ben  zu  der  Apokalypse  setzte , richtig  begreifen.  ” Schwegler  and  Kdstlin  make 
similar  concessions.  See  my  Hist,  of  the  Apost.  Ch. , p.  425. 

1 In  this  way  the  opposite  views  of  two  eminent  Hebrew  scholars  and  judges 
of  style  may  be  reconciled.  While  Renan,  looking  at  the  surface,  says  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  : “John’s  style  has  nothing  Hebrew,  nothing  Jewish,  nothing 
Talmudic,”  Ewald,  on  the  contrary,  penetrating  to  the  core,  remarks : “In  its 
true  spirit  and  afflatus,  no  language  can  be  more  genuinely  Hebrew  than  that 
of  John.”  Gndet  agrees  with  Ewald  when  he  says  : “ The  dress  only  is  Greek, 
the  body  is  Hebrew.” 


§ 41.  LIFE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  JOHN. 


421 


Notes. 

I.  The  Son  op  Thunder  and  the  Apostle  op  Love. 

I quote  some  excellent  remarks  on  the  character  of  John  from  my 
friend,  Dr.  Godet  (Com.  I.  35,  English  translation  by  Crombie  and  Cusin): 

“ How  are  we  to  explain  two  features  of  character  apparently  so  oppo- 
site ? There  exist  profound  receptive  natures  which  are  accustomed  to 
shut  up  their  impressions  within  themselves,  and  this  all  the  more  that 
these  impressions  are  keen  and  thrilling.  But  if  it  happens  that  these 
persons  once  cease  to  be  masters  of  themselves,  their  long-restrained 
emotions  then  burst  forth  in  sudden  explosions,  which  fill  the  persons 
around  them  with  amazement.  Does  not  the  character  of  John  belong 
to  this  order?  And  when  Jesus  gave  to  him  and  his  brother  the  sur- 
name of  Boanerges,  sons  of  thunder  (Mark  3 : 17),  could  he  have  de- 
scribed them  better?  I cannot  think  that,  by  that  surname,  Jesus 
intended,  as  all  the  old  writers  have  believed,  to  signalize  the  eloquence 
which  distinguished  them.  Neither  can  I allow  that  he  desired  by  that 
surname  to  perpetuate  the  recollection  of  their  anger  in  one  of  the  cases 
indicated.  We  are  led  by  what  precedes  to  a more  natural  explanation, 
and  one  more  worthy  of  Jesus  himself.  As  electricity  is  stored  up  by 
degrees  in  the  cloud  until  it  bursts  forth  suddenly  in  the  lightning  and 
thunderbolt,  so  in  those  two  loving  and  passionate  natures  impressions 
silently  accumulated  till  the  moment  when  the  heart  overflowed,  and 
they  took  an  unexpected  and  violent  flight.  We  love  to  represent  St. 
John  to  ourselves  as  of  a gentle  rather  than  of  an  energetic  nature,  ten- 
der even  to  weakness.  Do  not  his  writings  insist  before  and  above  all 
else  upon  love?  Were  not  the  last  sermons  of  the  old  man  ‘Love  one 
another?’  That  is  true;  but  we  forget  other  features  of  a different 
kind,  during  the  first  and  last  periods  of  his  life,  which  reveal  something 
decisive,  sharp,  absolute,  even  violent  in  his  disposition.  If  we  take 
all  the  facts  stated  into  consideration,  we  shall  recognize  in  him  one  of 
those  sensitive,  ardent  souls,  worshippers  of  an  ideal,  who  attach  them- 
selves at  first  sight,  and  without  reservation,  to  that  being  who  seems 
to  them  to  realize  that  of  which  they  have  dreamt,  and  whose  devotion 
easily  becomes  exclusive  and  intolerant.  They  feel  themselves  repelled 
by  everything  which  is  not  in  sympathy  with  their  enthusiasm.  They 
no  longer  understand  a division  of  heart  which  they  themselves  know 
not  how  to  practice.  All  for  all ! such  is  their  motto.  Where  that  all 
is  not,  there  is  in  their  eyes  nothing.  Such  affections  do  not  subsist 
without  including  an  alloy  of  impure  egoism.  A divine  work  is  needed, 
in  order  that  the  true  devotion,  which  constitutes  the  basis  of  such,  may 
shine  forth  at  the  last  in  all  its  sublimity.  Such  was,  if  we  are  not 
deceived,  the  inmost  history  of  John.”  Comp,  the  third  French  ed.  of 
Godet’s  Com.,  I.  p.  50. 


422 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Dr.  Westcott  (in  his  Com .,  p.  xxxiii.)  : “John  knew  that  to  be  with 
Christ  was  life,  to  reject  Christ  was  death  ; and  he  did  not  shrink  from 
expressing  the  thought  in  the  spirit  of  the  old  dispensation.  He  learned 
from  the  Lord,  as  time  went  on,  a more  faithful  patience,  but  he  did  not 
unlearn  the  burning  devotion  which  consumed  him.  To  the  last,  words 
of  awful  warning,  like  the  thunderings  about  the  throne,  reveal  the 
presence  of  that  secret  fire.  Every  page  of  the  Apocalypse  is  inspired 
with  the  cry  of  the  souls  beneath  the  altar,  ‘ How  long  * (Rev.  6 : 10) ; and 
nowhere  is  error  as  to  the  person  of  Christ  denounced  more  sternly  than 
in  his  Epistles  (2  John  10  ; 1 John  4 : 1 ff.).”  Similar  passages  in  Stanley. 

II.  The  Mission  of  John. 

Dean  Stanley  ( Sermons  and  Essays  on  the  Apost.  Age , p.  249  sq.,  3d 
ed.)  : “ Above  all,  John  spoke  of  the  union  of  the  soul  with  God,  but  it 
was  by  no  mere  process  of  oriental  contemplation,  or  mystic  absorption ; 
it  was  by  that  word  which  now  for  the  first  time  took  its  proper  place 
in  the  order  of  the  world — by  Love.  It  has  been  reserved  for  St.  Paul 
to  proclaim  that  the  deepest  principle  in  the  heart  of  man  was  Faith ; 
it  was  reserved  for  St.  John  to  proclaim  that  the  essential  attribute 
of  God  is  Love.  It  had  been  taught  by  the  Old  Testament  that  ‘ the 
beginning  of  wisdom  was  the  fear  of  God ; ’ it  remained  to  be  taught  by 
the  last  apostle  of  the  New  Testament  that  ‘ the  end  of  wisdom  was  the 
love  of  God.’  It  had  been  taught  of  old  time  by  Jew  and  by  heathen, 
by  Greek  philosophy  and  Eastern  religion,  that  the  Divinity  was  well 
pleased  with  the  sacrifices,  the  speculations,  the  tortures  of  man  ; it  was 
to  St.  John  that  it  was  left  to  teach  in  all  its  fulness  that  the  one  sign  of 
God’s  children  is  * the  love  of  the  brethren.’  And  as  it  is  Love  that 
pervades  our  whole  conception  of  his  teaching,  so  also  it  pervades  our 
whole  conception  of  his  character.  We  see  him — it  surely  is  no  un- 
warranted fancy — we  see  him  declining  with  the  declining  century ; 
every  sense  and  faculty  waxing  feebler,  but  that  one  divinest  faculty  of 
all  burning  more  and  more  brightly  ; we  see  it  breathing  through  every 
look  and  gesture ; the  one  animating  principle  of  the  atmosphere  in 
which  he  lives  and  moves  ; earth  and  heaven,  the  past,  the  present,  and 
the  future  alike  echoing  to  him  that  dying  strain  of  his  latest  words, 
‘ We  love  Him  because  He  loved  us.’  And  when  at  last  he  disappears 
from  our  view  in  the  last  pages  of  the  sacred  volume,  ecclesiastical  tra- 
dition still  lingers  in  the  close  : and  in  that  touching  story,  not  the  less 
impressive  because  so  familiar  to  us,  we  see  the  aged  apostle  borne  in 
the  arms  of  his  disciples  into  the  Ephesian  assembly,  and  there  repeat- 
ing over  and  over  again  the  same  saying,  ‘Little  children,  love  one 
another  ; ’ till,  when  asked  why  he  said  this  and  nothing  else,  he  replied 
in  those  well  known  words,  fit  indeed  to  be  the  farewell  speech  of  the 
Beloved  Disciple,  ‘ Because  this  is  our  Lord’s  command,  and  if  you 
fulfil  this,  nothing  else  is  needed.*  ” 


§ 42.  APOSTOLIC  LABORS  OF  JOHN. 


423 


§ 42.  Apostolic  Labors  of  John. 

John  in  the  Acts. 

In  the  first  stadium  of  Apostolic  Christianity  John  figures  as 
one  of  the  three  pillars  of  the  church  of  the  circumcision,  to- 
gether with  Peter  and  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord  ; while  Paul 
and  Barnabas  represented  the  Gentile  church.1  This  seems  to 
imply  that  at  that  time  he  had  not  yet  risen  to  the  full  apprehen- 
sion of  the  universalism  and  freedom  of  the  gospel.  But  he  was 
the  most  liberal  of  the  three,  standing  between  James  and  Peter 
on  the  one  hand,  and  Paul  on  the  other,  and  looking  already  to- 
wards a reconciliation  of  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christianity.  The 
Judaizers  never  appealed  to  him  as  they  did  to  James,  or  to  Peter.2 
There  is  no  trace  of  a Joliannean  party,  as  there  is  of  a Cephas 
party  and  a party  of  James.  He  stood  above  strife  and  division. 

In  the  earlier  chapters  of  the  Acts  he  appears,  next  to  Peter, 
as  the  chief  apostle  of  the  new  religion ; he  heals  with  him  the 
cripple  at  the  gate  of  the  temple ; he  was  brought  with  him  be- 
fore the  Sanhedrin  to  bear  witness  to  Christ ; he  is  sent  with 
him  by  the  apostles  from  Jerusalem  to  Samaria  to  confirm  the 
Christian  converts  by  imparting  to  them  the  Holy  Spirit ; he 
returned  with  him  to  Jerusalem.3  But  Peter  is  always  named 
first  and  takes  the  lead  in  word  and  act ; John  follows  in  mys- 
terious silence  and  makes  the  impression  of  a reserved  force 
which  will  manifest  itself  at  some  future  time.  He  must  have 
been  present  at  the  conference  of  the  apostles  in  Jerusalem,  a.d. 
50,  but  he  made  no  speech  and  took  no  active  part  in  the  great 
discussion  about  circumcision  and  the  terms  of  church  member- 
ship.4 All  this  is  in  entire  keeping  with  the  character  of  modest 
and  silent  prominence  given  to  him  in  the  Gospels. 

1 Gal.  2:9,  ’I cucwjSos,  Kal  KrjQas  Kal  T uavvijs,  ot  SoKovvres  arv\oi  elvai  . . . . 
avrol  els  rV  we piro/x-fiv . They  are  named  in  the  order  of  their  conservatism. 

2 Gal.  2 : 12,  rives  curb  Tajcc£/8ou.  1 Cor.  1 : 12,  ly<t>  elfit  K T]<pa. 

3 Acts  3 : 1 sqq.;  4 : 1,  13,  19,  20  ; 5 : 19,  20,  41,  42  ; 8 : 14-17,  25. 

4 He  is  included  among  the  “apostles,”  assembled  in  Jerusalem  on  that 
occasion,  Acts  15  : 6,  22,  23,  and  is  expressly  mentioned  as  one  of  the  three 
pillar-apostles  by  Paul  in  the  second  chapter  of  the  Galatians,  which  refers 
to  the  same  conference. 


424 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


After  the  year  50  he  seems  to  have  left  Jerusalem.  The  Acts 
no  more  mention  him  nor  Peter.  When  Paul  made  his  fifth 
and  last  visit  to  the  holy  city  (a.d.  58)  he  met  James,  hut  none 
of  the  apostles.1 

John  at  Ephesus. 

The  later  and  most  important  labors  of  John  are  contained 
in  his  writings,  which  we  shall  fully  consider  in  another  chap- 
ter. They  exhibit  to  us  a history  that  is  almost  exclusively  in- 
ward and  spiritual,  but  of  immeasurable  reach  and  import. 
They  make  no  allusion  to  the  time  and  place  of  residence  and 
composition.  But  the  Apocalypse  implies  that  he  stood  at  the 
head  of  the  churches  of  Asia  Minor.2  This  is  confirmed  by  the 
unanimous  testimony  of  antiquity,  which  is  above  all  reason- 
able doubt,  and  assigns  Ephesus  to  him  as  the  residence  of  his 
latter  years.3  lie  died  there  in  extreme  old  age  during  the 
reign  of  Trajan,  which  began  in  98.  His  grave  also  was  shown 
there  in  the  second  century. 

We  do  not  know  when  he  removed  to  Asia  Minor,  but  he 

1 Acts  21  : 18.  John  may  have  been,  however,  still  in  Palestine,  perhaps  in 
Galilee,  among  the  scenes  of  his  youth.  According  to  tradition  he  remained 
in  Jerusalem  till  the  death  of  the  Holy  Virgin,  about  a.d.  48. 

2 Rev.  1 : 4,  9,  11,  20  ; chs.  2 and  3.  It  is  very  evident  that  only  an  apos- 
tle could  occupy  such  a position,  and  not  an  obscure  presbyter  of  that  name, 
whose  very  existence  is  doubtful. 

3 Irenams,  the  disciple  of  Poly  carp  (a  personal  pupil  of  John),  Adv.  Hcer. 
III.  1,  1 ; 3,  4;  II.  22,  5,  etc.,  and  in  his  letter  to  Florinus  (in  Eusebius,  II.  E. 
V.  20);  Clemens  Alex.,  Quis  dives  salvetur , c.  42;  Apollonius  and  Poly  crates, 
at  the  close  of  the  second  century,  in  Euseb.  H.  E.  III.  31  ; V.  18,  24  ; Origen, 
Tertullian,  Eusebius,  Jerome,  etc.  Leucius,  also,  the  reputed  author  of  the 
Acts  of  John  about  130,  in  the  fragments  recently  published  by  Zahn,  bears  wit- 
ness to  the  residence  of  John  in  Ephesus  and  Patmos,  and  transfers  his  martyr- 
dom from  Rome  to  Ephesus.  Liitzelberger,  Keim  (: Leben  Jesu  v.  Nazar  ay  I. 
161  sq.),  Holtzmann,  Scholten,  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion.  (IT.  410), 
and  other  opponents  of  the  Gospel  of  John,  have  dared  to  remove  him  out  of 
Asia  Minor  with  negative  arguments  from  the  silence  of  the  Acts,  the  Ephe- 
sians, Colossians,  Papias,  Ignatius,  and  Polycarp,  arguments  which  either 
prove  nothing  at  all,  or  only  that  John  was  not  in  Ephesus  before  63.  But 
the  old  tradition  has  been  conclusively  defended  not  only  by  Ewald,  Grimm, 
Steitz,  Riggenbach,  Luthardt,  Godet,  Weiss,  but  even  by  Krenkel,  Hilgenfeld 
( Einleitung , pp.  395  sqq.),  and  Weizsacker  (498  sqq.),  of  the  Tubingen  school. 


§ 42.  APOSTOLIC  LABORS  OF  JOHN. 


425 


cannot  have  done  so  before  the  year  63.  For  in  his  valedictory 
address  to  the  Ephesian  elders,  and  in  his  Epistles  to  the  Ephe- 
sians and  Colossians  and  the  second  to  Timothy,  Paul  makes  no 
allusion  to  John,  and  speaks  with  the  authority  of  a superin- 
tendent of  the  churches  of  Asia  Minor.  It  was  probably  the 
martyrdom  of  Peter  and  Paul  that  induced  John  to  take  charge 
of  the  orphan  churches,  exposed  to  serious  dangers  and  trials.1 

Ephesus,  the  capital  of  proconsular  Asia,  was  a centre  of 
Grecian  culture,  commerce,  and  religion  ; famous  of  old  for  the 
songs  of  Homer,  Anacreon,  and  Mimnermus,  the  philosophy  of 
Thales,  Anaximenes,  and  Anaximander,  the  worship  and  won- 
derful temple  of  Diana.  There  Paul  had  labored  three  years 
(54-57)  and  established  an  influential  church,  a beacon-light  in 
the  surrounding  darkness  of  heathenism.  From  there  he  could 
best  commune  with  the  numerous  churches  he  had  planted  in 
the  provinces.  There  he  experienced  peculiar  joys  and  trials, 
and  foresaw  great  dangers  of  heresies  that  should  spring  up 
from  within.2  All  the  forces  of  orthodox  and  heretical  Chris- 
tianity were  collected  there.  Jerusalem  was  approaching  its 
downfall ; Pome  was  not  yet  a second  Jerusalem.  Ephesus,  by 
the  labors  of  Paul  and  of  John,  became  the  chief  theatre  of 
church  history  in  the  second  half  of  the  first  and  during  the 
greater  part  of  the  second  century.  Polycarp,  the  patriarchal 
martyr,  and  Irenaeus,  the  leading  theologian  in  the  conflict  with 
Gnosticism,  best  represent  the  spirit  of  John  and  bear  testimony 
to  his  influence.  He  alone  could  complete  the  work  of  Paul 
and  Peter,  and  give  the  church  that  compact  unity  which  she 

1 “ The  maintenance  of  evangelical  truth,”  says  Godet  (I.  42),  “demanded 
at  that  moment  powerful  aid.  It  is  not  surprising  then  that  John,  one  of  the 
last  survivors  amongst  the  apostles,  should  feel  himself  called  upon  to  supply 
in  those  countries  the  place  of  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  and  to  water,  as 
Apollos  had  formerly  done  in  Greece,  that  which  Paul  had  planted.”  Pres- 
sense  ( Apost . Era , p.  424):  “No  city  could  have  been  better  chosen  as  a 
centre  from  which  to  watch  over  the  churches,  and  follow  closely  the  progress 
of  heresy.  At  Ephesus  John  was  in  the  centre  of  Paul’s  mission  field,  and 
not  far  from  Greece.” 

* See  his  farewell  address  at  Miletus,  Acts  20 : 29,  30,  and  the  Epistles  to 
Timothy. 


426 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


needed  for  her  self-preservation  against  persecution  from  with- 
out and  heresy  and  corruption  from  within. 

If  it  were  not  for  the  writings  of  John  the  last  thirty  years 
of  the  first  century  would  be  almost  an  entire  blank.  They  re- 
semble that  mysterious  period  of  forty  days  between  the  resur- 
rection and  the  ascension,  when  the  Lord  hovered,  as  it  were, 
between  heaven  and  earth,  barely  touching  the  earth  beneath, 
and  appearing  to  the  disciples  like  a spirit  from  the  other  world. 
But  the  theology  of  the  second  and  third  centuries  evidently 
presupposes  the  writings  of  John,  and  starts  from  his  Christology 
rather  than  from  Paul’s  anthropology  and  soteriology,  which 
were  almost  buried  out  of  sight  until  Augustin,  in  Africa,  re- 
vived them. 

John  at  P atmos. 

John  was  banished  to  the  solitary,  rocky,  and  barren  island 
of  Patmos  (now  Patmo  or  Palmosa),  in  the  AEgean  sea,  south- 
west of  Ephesus.  This  rests  on  the  testimony  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse, 1 : 9,  as  usually  understood : “ I John,  your  brother  and 
partaker  with  you  in  the  tribulation  and  kingdom  and  patience 
in  Jesus,  was  in  the  isle  that  is  called  Patmos,  for  (on  account 
of)  the  word  of  God  and  the  testimony  of  Jesus.” 1 There  he 
received,  while  “ in  the  spirit,  on  the  Lord’s  day,”  those  wonder- 
ful revelations  concerning  the  struggles  and  victories  of  Chris- 
tianity. 

The  fact  of  his  banishment  to  Patmos  is  confirmed  by  the 
unanimous  testimony  of  antiquity.2  It  is  perpetuated  in  the 
traditions  of  the  island,  which  has  no  other  significance.  “ John 
— that  is  the  thought  of  Patmos ; the  island  belongs  to  him  ; it 

1 Bleek  understands  Sid  of  the  object:  John  was  carried  (in  a vision)  to 
Patmos  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  there  the  revelation  of  Christ.  He  derives 
the  whole  tradition  of  John’s  banishment  to  Patmos  from  a misunderstand- 
ing of  this  passage.  So  also  Liicke,  De  Wette,  Reuss,  and  Dusterdieck.  But 
the  traditional  exegesis  is  confirmed  by  the  mention  of  the  &A tyts,  $aai\eta  and 
inroixovt)  in  the  same  verse,  by  the  natural  meaning  of  /xaprvpla , and  by  the 
parallel  passages  6 : 9 and  20  : 4,  where  5 id  likewise  indicates  the  occasion  or 
reason  of  suffering. 

2 Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Origen,  Tertullian,  Eusebius,  Jerome,  eta 


§ 42.  APOSTOLIC  LABORS  OF  JOHN.  427 

is  his  sanctuary.  Its  stones  preach  of  him,  and  in  every  heart 
he  lives.”  1 

The  time  of  the  exile  is  uncertain,  and  depends  upon  the  dis- 
puted question  of  the  date  of  the  Apocalypse.  External  evidence 
points  to  the  reign  of  Domitian,  a.d.  95  ; internal  evidence  to 
the  reign  of  Nero,  or  soon  after  his  death,  a.d.  68. 

The  prevailing — we  may  say  the  only  distinct  tradition,  be- 
ginning with  so  respectable  a witness  as  Irenaeus  about  170, 
assigns  the  exile  to  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Domitian,  who  ruled 
from  81  to  96.3  He  was  the  second  Homan  emperor  who  per- 
secuted Christianity,  and  banishment  was  one  of  his  favorite 
modes  of  punishment.3  Both  facts  give  support  to  this  tradi- 
tion. After  a promising  beginning  he  became  as  cruel  and 
bloodthirsty  as  Nero,  and  surpassed  him  in  hypocrisy  and  blas- 
phemous self-deification.  Pie  began  his  letters:  “Our  Lord 
and  God  commands,”  and  required  his  subjects  to  address  him 
so.4  He  ordered  gold  and  silver  statues  of  himself  to  be  placed 
in  the  holiest  place  of  the  temples.  When  he  seemed  most 
friendly,  he  was  most  dangerous.  He  spared  neither  senators 
nor  consuls  when  they  fell  under  his  dark  suspicion,  or  stood  in 

1 Tischendorf,  Reise  in's  Morgenland , II.  257  sq.  A grotto  on  a hill  in  the 
southern  part  of  the  island  is  still  pointed  out  as  the  place  of  the  apocalyptic 
vision,  and  on  the  summit  of  the  mountain  is  the  monastery  of  St.  John,  with 
a library  of  about  250  manuscripts. 

2 Irenaeus,  Adv.  Hcer. , V.  30.  says  that  the  Apocalypse  was  seen  irpbs  r<p  tcAci 
tijs  A onsTiavov  apxrjs.  So  also  Eusebius,  H.  E.  III.  18,  20,  33  ; Chron.  ad 
ann.  14  Domitiani ; and  Jerome,  Be  vir.  illustr. , c.  9.  This  view  has  pre- 
vailed among  commentators  and  historians  till  quite  recently,  and  is  advocated 
by  Hengstenberg,  Lange,  Ebrard  (and  by  myself  in  the  Hist,  of  the  Ap.  Ch., 
% 101,  pp.  400  sqq.).  It  is  indeed  difficult  to  set  aside  the  clear  testimony  of 
Irenaeus,  who,  through  Poly  carp,  was  connected  with  the  very  age  of  John. 
But  we  must  remember  that  he  was  mistaken  even  on  more  important  points 
of  history,  as  the  age  of  Jesus,  which  he  asserts,  with  an  appeal  to  tradition, 
to  have  been  above  fifty  years. 

3 Tacitus  congratulates  Agricola  ( Vita  Agr.,  c.  44)  that  he  did  not  live  to 
see  under  this  emperor  “ tot  consularium  ccedes , tot  nobilissimarum  feminarum 
exilia  etfugas."  Agricola,  whose  daughter  Tacitus  married,  died  in  93,  two 
years  before  Domitian. 

4 Suetonius,  Bomit. , c.  13  : “ Bominus  et  Betts  noster  hoc  fieri  jubet.  Unde 
institutum  posihac , ut  ne  scripto  quidem  ac  sermone  cujusquam  appellaretur 
aliter." 


428 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


the  way  of  his  ambition.  He  searched  for  the  descendants  of 
David  and  the  kinsmen  of  Jesus,  fearing  their  aspirations,  but 
found  that  they  were  poor  and  innocent  persons.1  Many  Chris- 
tians suffered  martyrdom  under  his  reign,  on  the  charge  of 
atheism — among  them  his  own  cousin,  Flavius  Clemens,  of  con- 
sular dignity,  who  was  put  to  death,  and  his  wife  Domitilla, 
who  was  banished  to  the  island  of  Pandateria,  near  Naples.2 
In  favor  of  the  traditional  date  may  also  be  urged  an  intrinsic 
propriety  that  the  hook  which  closes  the  canon,  and  treats  of 
the  last  things  till  the  final  consummation,  should  have  been 
written  last. 

Nevertheless,  the  internal  evidence  of  the  Apocalypse  itself, 
and  a comparison  with  the  fourth  Gospel,  favor  an  earlier 
date,  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  during  the  in- 
terregnum which  followed  the  death  of  Nero  (68),  when  the 
beast,  that  is  the  Homan  empire,  was  wounded,  hut  was  soon 
to  be  revived  (by  the  accession  of  Yespasian).  If  there  is 
some  foundation  for  the  early  tradition  of  the  intended  oil- 
martyrdom  of  John  at  Home,  or  at  Ephesus,  it  would  naturally 
point  to  the  Neronian  persecution,  in  which  Christians  were 
covered  with  inflammable  material  and  burned  as  torches.  The 
unmistakable  allusions  to  imperial  persecutions  apply  much 
better  to  Nero  than  to  Domitian.  The  difference  between  the 
Hebrew  coloring  and  fiery  vigor  of  the  Apocalypse  and  the 
pure  Greek  and  calm  repose  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  to  which 
we  have  already  alluded,  are  more  easily  explained  if  the 
former  was  written  some  twenty  years  earlier.  This  view  has 
some  slight  support  in  ancient  tradition,3  and  has  been  adopted 

? Hegesippus  in  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl .,  III.,  19,  20.  Hegesippus,  however, 
is  silent  about  the  banishment  of  John,  and  this  silence  has  been  used  by 
Bleek  as  an  argument  against  the  fact. 

2 Dion  Cassius  in  the  abridgment  of  Xiphilinus,  67,  14. 

3 So  the  title  of  the  Syriac  translation  of  the  Apocalypse  (which,  however, 
is  of  much  later  date  than  the  Peshitto,  which  omits  the  Apocalypse) : “ Rcvc- 
latio  quam  Deus  Joanni  Evangelista  in  Patmo  insula  dedit , in  quam  a Nerone 
Ccesare  relegatus  fuerat.”  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Quis  dives  salv .,  c.  42,  and 
quoted  by  Eusebius,  III.,  23)  says  indefinitely  that  John  returned  from  Patmos 
to  Ephesus  after  the  death  of  “the  tyrant  ” (roD  rvpawov  reXevrrjarayros ),  which 


§ 43.  TRADITIONS  RESPECTING  JOHN.  429 

by  the  majority  of  modern  critical  historians  and  commenta- 
tors.1 

We  hold,  then,  as  the  most  probable  view,  that  John  was 
exiled  to  Fatmos  under  Nero,  wrote  the  Apocalypse  soon  after 
Nero’s  death,  a.d.  68  or  69,  returned  to  Ephesus,  completed  his 
Gospel  and  Epistles  several  (perhaps  twenty)  years  later,  and  fell 
asleep  in  peace  during  the  year  of  Trajan,  after  a.d.  98. 

The  faithful  record  of  the  historical  Christ  in  the  whole  ful- 
ness of  his  divine-human  person,  as  the  embodiment  and  source 
of  life  eternal  to  all  believers,  with  the  accompanying  epistle  of 
practical  application,  was  the  last  message  of  the  Beloved  Disci- 
ple at  the  threshold  of  the  second  century,  at  the  golden  sunset 
of  the  apostolic  age.  The  recollections  of  his  youth,  ripened  by 
long  experience,  transfigured  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  radiant 
with  heavenly  light  of  truth  and  holiness,  are  the  most  precious 
legacy  of  the  last  of  the  apostles  to  all  future  generations  of  the 
church. 

§ 43.  Traditions  Respecting  John .* 

The  memory  of  John  sank  deep  into  the  heart  of  the  church, 
and  not  a few  incidents  more  or  less  characteristic  and  probable 
have  been  preserved  by  the  early  fathers. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  towards  the  close  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, represents  John  as  a faithful  and  devoted  pastor  when,  in 
his  old  age,  on  a tour  of  visitation,  he  lovingly  pursued  one  of 

may  apply  to  Nero  as  well  as  to  Domitian.  Origen  mentions  simply  a Roman 
Paai\evs.  Tertullian’s  legend  of  the  Roman  oil-martyrdom  of  John  seems  to 
point  to  Nero  rather  than  to  any  other  emperor,  and  was  so  understood  by 
Jerome  (Adv.  Jovin.  I.  26),  although  Tertullian  does  not  say  so,  and  Jerome 
himself  assigns  the  exile  and  the  composition  of  the  Apocalypse  to  the  reign 
of  Domitian  ( De  vir.  ill.,  c.  9).  Epiphanius  (ITcer.  LI.  33)  puts  the  banish- 
ment back  to  the  reign  of  Claudius  (a.d.  41-53),  which  is  evidently  much  too 
early. 

1 Neander,  Gieseler,  Baur,  Ewald,  Liicke,  Bleek,  De  Wette,  Reuss,  Diister- 
dieck,  Weiss,  Renan,  Stanley,  Lightfoot,  Westcott. 

3 These  traditions  are  reproduced  in  a pleasing  manner  by  Dean  Stanley,  in 
his  Sermons  and  Essays  on  the  Apost . Age,  pp.  266-281  (3d  ed.).  Comp,  also 
my  Hist,  of  the  Ap.  Ch. , pp.  404  sqq. 


430 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


his  former  converts  who  had  become  a robber,  and  reclaimed 
him  to  the  church. 

Irenaeus  bears  testimony  to  his  character  as  “ the  Son  of 
Thunder  ” when  he  relates,  as  from  the  lips  of  Polycarp,  that, 
on  meeting  in  a public  bath  at  Ephesus  the  Gnostic  heretic  Ce- 
rinthus,1  who  denied  the  incarnation  of  our  Lord,  John  refused 
to  remain  under  the  same  roof,  lest  it  might  fall  down.  This 
reminds  one  of  the  incident  recorded  in  Luke  9 : 49,  and  the 
apostle’s  severe  warning  in  2 John  10  and  11.  The  story  exem- 
plifies the  possibility  of  uniting  the  deepest  love  of  truth  with 
the  sternest  denunciation  of  error  and  moral  evil.2 

Jerome  pictures  him  as  the  disciple  of  love,  who  in  his  ex- 
treme old  age  was  carried  to  the  meeting-place  on  the  arms  of 
his  disciples,  and  repeated  again  and  again  the  exhortation, 
“ Little  children,  love  one  another,”  adding : “ This  is  the 
Lord’s  command,  and  if  this  alone  be  done,  it  is  enough.”  This, 
of  all  the  traditions  of  John,  is  the  most  credible  and  the  most 
useful. 

In  the  Greek  church  John  bears  the  epithet  “ the  theologian  ” 
(-JeoAoyos),  for  teaching  most  clearly  the  divinity  of  Christ  (rrj v 
SeoTTjTa,  tov  \6yov).  He  is  also  called  “ the  virgin  ” (7 rap^evo?),3 
for  his  chastity  and  supposed  celibacy.  Augustin  says  that  the 
singular  chastity  of  John  from  his  early  youth  was  supposed  by 
some  to  be  the  ground  of  his  intimacy  with  Jesus.4 

The  story  of  John  and  the  huntsman,  related  by  Cassian,  a 

1 Or  Ebion,  according  to  Epiphanius,  H(vr .,  xxx.  25. 

2 Stanley  mentions,  as  an  illustration  of  the  magnifying  influence  of  fancy, 
that  Jeremy  Taylor,  in  relating  this  story,  adds  that  “ immediately  upon  the 
retreat  of  the  apostle  the  bath  fell  down  and  crushed  Cerinthus  in  the  ruins  ” 
(Life  of  Christ , Sect.  xii.  2). 

3 irapfrevos  usually  means  a virgin  (Matt.  1 : 23  ; Luke  1 : 27  ; Acts  21:9; 
1 Cor.  7 : 25.  28,  34),  but  is  applied  also  to  men  who  never  touched  women, 
Apoc.  14:4,  and  in  patristic  writers. 

4 Augustin,  Tract.  124  in  Joh.  Evang.  ( Opera  III.  1976,  ed.  Migne)  : “ Sunt 
qui  senserint  . ...  a Christo  Joannem  apostolum  propter ea  plus  amatum  quod 
neque  uxorem  duxerit,  et  ab  ineunte  pueritia  castissimus  vixerit."  He  quotes 
Jerome,  Contr.  Jovin.  1.  c.,  but  adds  : “ Hoc  quidem  in  Scripturis  non  eviden- 
ter  apparet .”  According  to  Ambrosiaster,  Ad  2 Cor.  11:2,  all  the  apostles 
were  married  except  John  and  Paul.  Tertullian  calls  John  Chi'isti  spado. 


§ 43.  TRADITIONS  RESPECTING  JOHN. 


431 


monk  of  the  fifth  century,  represents  him  as  gently  playing  with 
a partridge  in  his  hand,  and  saying  to  a huntsman,  who  was  sur- 
prised at  it : “ Let  not  this  brief  and  slight  relaxation  of  my 
mind  offend  thee,  without  which  the  spirit  would  flag  from 
over-exertion  and  not  be  able  to  respond  to  the  call  of  duty 
when  need  required.”  Childlike  simplicity  and  playfulness  are 
often  combined  with  true  greatness  of  mind. 

Poly  crates,  bishop  of  Ephesus,  at  the  close  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, relates  (according  to  Eusebius)  that  John  introduced  in 
Asia  Minor  the  Jewish  practice  of  observing  Easter  on  the  14th 
of  Nisan,  irrespective  of  Sunday.  This  fact  entered  largely 
into  the  paschal  controversies  of  the  second  century,  and  into 
the  modern  controversy  about  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel  of 
John. 

The  same  Poly  crates  of  Ephesus  describes  John  as  wearing 
the  plate,  or  diadem  of  the  Jewish  high-priest  (Ex.  28  : 36,  37 ; 
39  : 30,  31).  It  is  probably  a figurative  expression  of  priestly 
holiness  which  John  attaches  to  all  true  believers  (comp.  Rev. 
2 : 17),  but  in  which  he  excelled  as  the  patriarch.1 

From  a misunderstanding  of  the  enigmatical  word  of  Jesus, 
John  21  : 22,  arose  the  legend  that  John  was  only  asleep  in  his 
grave,  gently  moving  the  mound  as  he  breathed,  and  awaiting 
the  final  advent  of  the  Lord.  According  to  another  form  of  the 
legend  he  died,  but  was  immediately  raised  and  translated  to 
heaven,  like  Elijah,  to  return  with  him  as  the  herald  of  the 
second  advent  of  Christ.2 

1 In  Euseb.  II.  E.  III.  31,  3 ; V.  24,  3 : ’I oodvvrjs  . ...  bs  ifpevs  rb 

ireraXov  TrstyopyKus  nal  p.aprvs  Kai  SiddorrcaAos  outos  eV  Etptffcp  KeKoifjLTjrcu.  Epi- 
phanius  reports  (no  doubt  from  Hegesippus)  the  same,  with  some  ascetic 
features,  of  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord.  See  Stanley’s  remarks,  pp.  276- 
278,  and  Lightfoot  on  Galat .,  p.  345  note,  and  Philipp,  p.  252.  “ As  a figura- 

tive expression,”  says  Lightfoot,  “ or  as  a literal  fact,  the  notice  points  to  St. 
John  as  the  veteran  teacher,  the  chief  representative,  of  a pontifical  race. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  possible  that  this  was  not  the  sense  which  Polycrates 
himself  attached  to  the  figure  or  the  fact ; and  if  so,  we  have  here  perhaps 
the  earliest  passage  in  any  extant  Christian  writing  where  the  sacerdotal 
view  of  the  ministry  is  distinctly  put  forward.”  But  in  the  Didache  (ch.  13) 
the  Christian  prophets  are  called  “high  priests.” 

* Augustin  mentions  the  legend,  but  contradicts  it,  Tract.  224  in  Ev.  Joann. 


432 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

CHRISTIAN  LIFE  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


Sources. 

The  teaching  and  example  of  Christ  as  exhibited  in  the  Gospels , and 
of  the  apostles  in  the  Acts  and  Epistles ; compared  and  contrasted 
with  the  rabbinical  ethics  and  the  state  of  Jewish  society,  and  with 
the  Greek  systems  of  philosophy  and  the  moral  condition  of  the 
Roman  empire,  as  described  in  the  writings  of  Seneca,  Tacitus,  the 
Roman  satirists,  etc. 


Literature. 

I.  The  respective  sections  in  the  Histories  of  the  Apost.  Church  by 

Neander  : I.  229-283  (Germ,  ed.) ; Schaff  : $$  109-123  (pp.  433-492) ; 
Lange  : II.  495-534 ; Weizsackeb  : 647-698. 

II.  The  works  on  the  Theology  of  the  Apostolic  Age , by  Schmid,  Reuss, 
Baub,  Weiss,  etc. 

III.  The  Systems  of  Christian  Ethics  by  Schleiebmacher,  Rothe,  Nean- 
deb,  Schmid,  Wuttke,  Harless,  Mabtensen,  Luthardt,  and  Lecky’s 
History  of  European  Morals  (1869),  vol.  I.  357  sqq. 

IV.  A.  Thoma  (pastor  in  Mannheim)  : Geschichte  der  christlichen  Sitten- 
lehre  in  der  Zeit  des  Neuen  Testamentes,  Haarlem,  1879  (380  pp.).  A 
crowned  prize-essay  of  the  Teyler  Theol.  Society.  The  first  attempt 
of  a separate  critical  history  of  N.  T.  ethics,  but  written  from  the 
negative  standpoint  of  the  Tubingen  school,  and  hence  very  unsatis- 
factory. It  is  divided  in  three  parts  : I.  The  Ethics  of  Jesus  ; II. 
The  Ethics  of  Paul ; III.  The  Ethics  of  the  Congregation. 

V.  Works  which  treat  of  Christian  life  in  the  post-apostolic  age  (Cave, 

Arnold,  Schmidt,  Chastel,  PbessensIs,  etc.)  will  be  noticed  in 
the  second  period. 

§ 44.  The  Spiritual  Power  of  Christianity . 

Practical  Christianity  is  the  manifestation  of  a new  life ; a 
spiritual  (as  distinct  from  intellectual  and  moral)  life ; a super- 
natural (as  distinct  from  natural)  life ; it  is  a life  of  holiness  and 


§ 44.  TIIE  SPIRITUAL  POWER  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  433 

peace;  a life  of  union  and  communion  with  God  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Spirit ; it  is  eternal  life,  beginning  with  regenera- 
tion and  culminating  in  the  resurrection.  It  lays  hold  of  the 
inmost  centre  of  man’s  personality,  emancipates  him  from  the 
dominion  of  sin,  and  brings  him  into  vital  union  with  God  in 
Christ ; from  this  centre  it  acts  as  a purifying,  ennobling,  and 
regulating  force  upon  all  the  faculties  of  man — the  emotions, 
the  will,  and  the  intellect — and  transforms  even  the  body  into 
a temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Christianity  rises  far  above  all  other  religions  in  the  theory 
and  practice  of  virtue  and  piety.  It  sets  forth  the  highest 
standard  of  love  to  God  and  to  man ; and  this  not  merely  as 
an  abstract  doctrine,  or  an  object  of  effort  and  hope,  but  as  a 
living  fact  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  whose  life  and  example 
have  more  power  and  influence  than  all  the  maxims  and  pre- 
cepts of  sages  and  legislators.  Deeds  speak  louder  than  words. 
Prceccjpta  docent , exemjpla  traliunt.  The  finest  systems  of  moral 
philosophy  have  not  been  able  to  regenerate  and  conquer  the 
world.  The  gospel  of  Christ  has  done  it  and  is  doing  it  con- 
stantly. The  wisest  men  of  Greece  and  Rome  sanctioned  slav- 
ery, polygamy,  concubinage,  oppression,  revenge,  infanticide ; or 
they  belied  their  purer  maxims  by  their  conduct.  The  ethical 
standard  of  the  Jews  was  much  higher;  yet  none  of  their 
patriarchs,  kings,  or  prophets  claimed  perfection,  and  the  Bible 
honestly  reports  the  infirmities  and  sins,  as  well  as  the  virtues, 
of  Abraham,  Jacob,  Moses,  David,  and  Solomon. 

But  the  character  of  Christ  from  the  manger  to  the  cross  is 
without  spot  or  blemish  ; he  is  above  reproach  or  suspicion,  and 
acknowledged  by  friend  and  foe  to  be  the  purest  as  well  as  the 
wisest  being  that  ever  appeared  on  earth.  He  is  the  nearest 
approach  which  God  can  make  to  man,  and  which  man  can 
make  to  God  ; he  represents  the  fullest  imaginable  and  attain- 
able harmony  of  the  ideal  and  real,  of  the  divine  and  human. 
The  Christian  church  may  degenerate  in  the  hands  of  sinful 
men,  but  the  doctrine  and  life  of  her  founder  are  a never-failing 
fountain  of  purification. 


434 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


The  perfect  life  of  harmony  with  God  and  devotion  to  the 
welfare  of  the  human  race,  is  to  pass  from  Christ  to  his  follow- 
ers. Christian  life  is  an  imitation  of  the  life  of  Christ.  From 
his  word  and  spirit,  living  and  ruling  in  the  church,  an  un- 
broken stream  of  redeeming,  sanctifying,  and  glorifying  power 
has  been  flowing  forth  upon  individuals,  families,  and  nations 
for  these  eighteen  centuries,  and  will  continue  to  flow  till  the 
world  is  transformed  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  God 
becomes  all  in  all. 

One  of  the  strongest  proofs  of  the  supernatural  origin  of 
Christianity,  is  its  elevation  above  the  natural  culture  and  moral 
standard  of  its  first  professors.  The  most  perfect  doctrine  and 
life  described  by  unschooled  fishermen  of  Galilee,  who  never 
before  had  been  outside  of  Palestine,  and  were  scarcely  able  to 
read  and  to  write ! And  the  profoundest  mysteries  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  the  incarnation,  redemption,  regeneration,  resur- 
rection, taught  by  the  apostles  to  congregations  of  poor  and 
illiterate  peasants,  slaves  and  freedinen  ! For  “not  many  wise 
after  the  flesh,  not  many  mighty,  not  many  noble  ” were  called, 
“ but  God  chose  the  foolish  things  of  the  world,  that  he  might 
put  to  shame  them  that  are  wise ; and  God  chose  the  weak  things 
of  the  world,  that  he  might  put  to  shame  the  things  that  are 
strong ; and  the  base  things  of  the  world,  and  the  things  that 
are  despised,  did  God  choose,  yea,  and  the  things  that  are  not, 
that  he  might  bring  to  naught  the  things  that  are : that  no  flesh 
should  glory  before  God.  But  of  him  are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus, 
who  was  made  unto  us  wisdom  from  God,  and  righteousness 
and  sanctification  and  redemption : that,  according  as  it  is  writ- 
ten, he  that  glorietli,  let  him  glory  in  the  Lord.”  1 

If  we  compare  the  moral  atmosphere  of  the  apostolic  churches 
with  the  actual  condition  of  surrounding  Judaism  and  heathen- 
ism, the  contrast  is  as  startling  as  that  between  a green  oasis 
with  living  fountains  and  lofty  palm  trees,  and  a barren  desert 
of  sand  and  stone.  Judaism  in  its  highest  judicatory  committed 
the  crime  of  crimes,  the  crucifixion  of  the  Saviour  of  the  world, 

1 1 Cor.  2:26-31. 


§ 44.  THE  SPIRITUAL  POWER  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  435 


and  hastened  to  its  doom.  Heathenism  was  fitly  represented 
by  such  imperial  monsters  as  Tiberius,  Caligula,  Kero,  and 
Domitian,  and  exhibited  a picture  of  hopeless  corruption  and 
decay,  as  described  in  the  darkest  colors  not  only  by  St.  Paul, 
but  by  his  heathen  contemporary,  the  wisest  Stoic  moralist,  the 
teacher  and  victim  of  Nero.1 


Notes. 

The  rationalistic  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  (vol.  II.  487)  makes 
the  following  remarkable  concession : “ The  teaching  of  Jesus  carried 
morality  to  the  sublimest  point  attained,  or  even  attainable,  by  human- 
ity. The  influence  of  his  spiritual  religion  has  been  rendered  doubly 
great  by  the  unparalleled  purity  and  elevation  of  his  character.  Sur- 
passing in  his  sublime  simplicity  and  earnestness  the  moral  grandeur  of 
Sakya  Muni,  and  putting  to  the  blush  the  sometimes  sullied,  though 
generally  admirable,  teaching  of  Socrates  and  Plato,  and  the  whole 
round  of  Greek  philosophers,  he  presented  the  rare  spectacle  of  a life,  so 
far  as  we  can  estimate  it,  uniformly  noble  and  consistent  with  his  own 
lofty  principles,  so  that  the  ‘ imitation  of  Christ  ’ has  become  almost 
the  final  word  in  the  preaching  of  his  religion,  and  must  continue  to  be 
one  of  the  most  powerful  elements  of  its  permanence.” 

Lecky,  likewise  a rationalistic  writer  and  historian  of  great  ability  and 
fairness,  makes  this  weighty  remark  in  his  History  of  European  Morals 
(vol.  II.  9)  : “It  was  reserved  for  Christianity  to  present  to  the  world  an 
ideal  character,  which  through  all  the  changes  of  eighteen  centuries  has 
inspired  the  hearts  of  men  with  an  impassioned  love  ; has  shown  itself 
capable  of  acting  on  all  ages,  nations,  temperaments,  and  conditions ; 
has  been,  not  only  the  highest  pattern  of  virtue,  but  the  strongest  incen- 

1 Comp,  the  well  known  passage  of  Seneca,  De  Ira , II.  8 : Omnia  sceleribus 
ac  vitiis  plena  sunt;  plus  committitur , quam  quod  possit  coercitione  sanari. 
Certatur  ingenti  quodam  nequitice  certamine  : maior  quoiidie  peccandi  cupiditas , 
minor  verecundia  est.  Expulso  melioris  cequiorisque  respeclu , quocunque  visum 
est , libido  se  impingit ; nec  furtiva  jam  scelera  sunt,  pr alter  oculos  eunt. 
Adeoque  in  publicum  missa  nequitia  est , et  in  omnium  pectoribus  evaluit , ut 
innocentia  non  rara,  sed  nulla  sit.  Numquid  enim  singuli  aut  pauci  rupere 
legem  ; undique,  velut  signo  dato , ad  fas  nefasque  miscendum  coorli  sunt." 
Similar  passages  might  be  gathered  from  Thucydides,  Aristophanes,  Sallust, 
Horace,  Juvenal,  Persius,  Tacitus,  Suetonius.  It  is  true  that  almost  every 
heathen  vice  still  exists  in  Christian  countries,  but  they  exist  in  spite  of  the 
Christian  religion,  while  the  heathen  immorality  was  the  legitimate  result  of 
idolatry,  and  was  sanctioned  by  the  example  of  the  heathen  gods,  and  the 
apotheosis  of  the  worst  Roman  emperors. 


436 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


tive  to  its  practice,  and  has  exercised  so  deep  an  influence  that  it  may 
be  truly  said  that  the  simple  record  of  three  short  years  of  active  life 
has  done  more  to  regenerate  and  to  soften  mankind  than  all  the  disqui- 
sitions of  philosophers  and  all  the  exhortations  of  moralists.  This  has, 
indeed,  been  the  wellspring  of  whatever  is  best  and  purest  in  Christian 
life.  Amid  all  the  sins  and  failings,  amid  all  the  priestcraft  and  perse- 
cution and  fanaticism  that  have  defaced  the  Church,  it  has  preserved,  in 
the  character  and  example  of  its  Founder,  an  enduring  principle  of  re- 
generation.” 

To  this  we  may  add  the  testimony  of  the  atheistic  philosopher,  John 
Stuart  Mill,,  from  his  essay  on  Theism , written  shortly  before  his  death 
(1873),  and  published,  1874,  in  Three  Essays  on  Religion  (Am.  ed.,  p. 
253)  : “Above  all,  the  most  valuable  part  of  the  effect  on  the  character 
which  Christianity  has  produced,  by  holding  up  in  a divine  person  a 
standard  of  excellence  and  a model  for  imitation,  is  available  even  to  the 
absolute  unbeliever,  and  can  never  more  be  lost  to  humanity.  For  it  is 
Christ  rather  than  God  whom  Christianity  has  held  up  to  believers  as 
the  pattern  of  perfection  for  humanity.  It  is  the  God  incarnate  more 
than  the  God  of  the  Jews,  or  of  nature,  who,  being  idealized,  has  taken 
so  great  and  salutary  a hold  on  the  modem  mind.  And  whatever  else 
may  be  taken  away  from  us  by  rational  criticism,  Christ  is  still  left ; a 
unique  figure,  not  more  unlike  all  his  precursors  than  all  his  followers, 
even  those  who  had  the  direct  benefit  of  his  personal  teaching.  It  is  of 
no  use  to  say  that  Christ,  as  exhibited  in  the  Gospels,  is  not  historical, 
and  that  we  know  not  how  much  of  what  is  admirable  has  been  super- 
added  by  the  tradition  of  his  followers.  The  tradition  of  followers  suf- 
fices to  insert  any  number  of  marvels,  and  may  have  inserted  all  the 
miracles  which  he  is  reputed  to  have  wrought.  But  who  among  bis 
disciples,  or  among  their  proselytes,  was  capable  of  inventing  the  say- 
ings ascribed  to  Jesus,  or  of  imagining  the  life  and  character  revealed 
in  the  Gospels  ? Certainly  not  the  fishermen  of  Galilee ; as  certainly 
not  St.  Paul,  whose  character  and  idiosyncrasies  were  of  a totally  differ- 
ent sort ; still  less  the  early  Christian  writers,  in  whom  nothing  is  more 
evident  than  that  the  good  which  was  in  them  was  all  derived,  as  they 
always  professed  that  it  was  derived,  from  the  higher  source.” 


§ 45.  The  Spiritual  Gifts. 

Comp,  the  Commentaries  on  Rom.  12  : 3-9,  and  1 Cor.,  chs.  12-14. 

The  apostolic  church  was  endowed  from  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost with  all  the  needful  spiritual  gifts  for  the  moral  regenera- 
tion of  the  world.  They  formed,  as  it  were,  her  bridal  garment 
and  her  panoply  against  Jewish  and  Gentile  opposition.  They 


§ 45.  TIIE  SPIRITUAL  GIFTS. 


437 


are  called  charisma1  or  gifts  of  grace,  as  distinguished  from, 
though  not  opposed  to,  natural  endowments.  They  are  certain 
special  energies  and  manifestations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  be- 
lievers for  the  common  good.2  They  are  supernatural,  there- 
fore, in  their  origin  ; but  they  correspond  to  natural  virtues,  and 
in  operation  they  follow  all  the  mental  and  moral  faculties  of  man, 
raising  them  to  higher  activity,  and  consecrating  them  to  the  ser- 
vice of  Christ.  They  all  rest  on  faith,  that  “ gift  of  gifts.” 

The  spiritual  gifts  may  be  divided  into  three  classes : first, 
intellectual  gifts  of  knowledge,  mainly  theoretical  in  their  char- 
acter, and  concerned  primarily  with  doctrine  and  theology ; 
secondly,  emotional  gifts  of  feeling,  appearing  chiefly  in  divine 
worship  and  for  immediate  edification ; and  thirdly,  practical 
gifts  of  will,  devoted  to  the  organization,  government,  and  dis- 
cipline of  the  church.  They  are  not,  however,  abstractly  sepa- 
rate, but  work  together  harmoniously  for  the  common  purpose 
of  edifying  the  body  of  Christ.  In  the  New  Testament  ten 
charisms  are  specially  mentioned  ; the  first  four  have  to  do 
chiefly,  though  not  exclusively,  with  doctrine,  the  next  two  with 
worship,  and  the  remaining  four  with  government  and  practical 
affairs. 

1.  The  gift  of  wisdom  and  knowledge,3  or  of  deep  insight 
into  the  nature  and  system  of  the  divine  word  and  the  doctrines 
of  the  Christian  salvation. 

2.  The  gift  of  teaching,4  or  of  practically  applying  the  gift 
of  knowledge ; the  power  of  clearly  expounding  the  Scriptures 
for  the  instruction  and  edification  of  the  people. 

3.  The  gift  of  prophecy,5  akin  to  the  two  preceding,  but  ad- 
dressed rather  to  pious  feeling  than  to  speculative  reflection, 
and  employing  commonly  the  language  of  higher  inspiration, 
rather  than  that  of  logical  exposition  and  demonstration.  It  is 
by  no  means  confined  to  the  prediction  of  future  events,  but 
consists  in  disclosing  the  hidden  counsel  of  God,  the  deeper 
sense  of  the  Scriptures,  the  secret  state  of  the  heart,  the  abyss 


1 xaPlffiJLara • 

8 trocpla  and  yvi o<ris. 


2 Comp.  1 Cor.  12  : 7 ; 14  : 12. 

4 $i$a<TKa\ia.  5 irpocpiyrela. 


438 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


of  sin.  and  the  glory  of  redeeming  grace.  It  appears  particu* 
larly  in  creative  periods,  times  of  mighty  revival;  while  the 
gift  of  teaching  suits  better  a quiet  state  of  natural  growth  in 
the  church.  Both  act  not  only  in  the  sphere  of  doctrine  and 
theology,  but  also  in  worship,  and  might  in  this  view  be  reck- 
oned also  among  the  gifts  of  feeling. 

4.  The  gift  of  discerning  spirits,1  serves  mainly  as  a guide 
to  the  third  gift,  by  discriminating  between  true  prophets  and 
false,  between  divine  inspiration  and  a merely  human  or  satanic 
enthusiasm.  In  a wider  sense  it  is  a deep  discernment  in  sepa- 
rating truth  and  error,  and  in  judging  of  moral  and  religious 
character  ; a holy  criticism  still  ever  necessary  to  the  purity  of 
Christian  doctrine  and  the  administration  of  the  discipline  of 
the  church. 

5.  The  gift  of  tongues,2  or  of  an  utterance  proceeding  from 
a state  of  unconscious  ecstasy  in  the  speaker,  and  unintelligible 
to  the  hearer  unless  interpreted — thus  differing  from  prophecy, 
which  requires  a self-conscious  though  highly  elevated  state  of 
feeling,  serves  directly  to  profit  the  congregation,  and  is  therefore 
preferred  by  Paul.3  The  speaking  with  tongues  is  an  involun- 
tary psalm-like  prayer  or  song,  uttered  from  a spiritual  trance, 
and  in  a peculiar  language  inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
soul  is  almost  entirely  passive,  an  instrument  on  which  the 
Spirit  plays  his  heavenly  melodies.  This  gift  has,  therefore, 
properly,  nothing  to  do  with  the  spread  of  the  church  among 
foreign  peoples  and  in  foreign  languages,  but  is  purely  an  act 
of  worship,  for  the  edification  primarily  of  the  speaker  himself, 
and  indirectly,  through  interpretation,  for  the  hearers.  It  ap- 
peared, first,  indeed,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  but  before  Peter’s 
address  to  the  people,  which  was  the  proper  mission-sermon ; 
and  we  meet  with  it  afterwards  in  the  house  of  Cornelius  and 
in  the  Corinthian  congregation,  as  a means  of  edification  for 
believers,  and  not,  at  least  not  directly,  for  unbelieving  hearers, 

1 Hiatcplffeis  TTvevfiaTwv. 

2 KaivQus  or  erepais  y\d><raais  AaA.e<V,  or  simply,  yXuxrcais , sometimes  yAaxroy 

AaAflj/.  See  § 24,  p.  234.  3 1 Cor.  14  : 1-5. 


§ 45.  THE  SPIRITUAL  GIFTS. 


439 


although  it  served  to  them  as  a significant  sign,1 * *  arresting  their 
attention  to  the  supernatural  power  in  the  church. 

6.  The  gift  of  interpretation  3 is  the  supplement  of  the  glos- 
solalia,  and  makes  that  gift  profitable  to  the  congregation  by 
translating  the  prayers  and  songs  from  the  language  of  the  spirit 
and  of  ecstasy 9 into  that  of  the  understanding  and  of  sober  self- 
consciousness.4  The  preponderance  of  reflection  here  puts  this 
gift  as  properly  in  the  first  class  as  in  the  second. 

7.  The  gift  of  ministry  and  help,6  that  is,  of  special  qualifi- 
cation primarily  for  the  office  of  deacon  and  deaconess,  or  for  the 
regular  ecclesiastical  care  of  the  poor  and  the  sick,  and,  in  the 
wide  sense,  for  all  labors  of  Christian  charity  and  philanthropy. 

8.  The  gift  of  church  government  and  the  care  of  souls,6 
indispensable  to  all  pastors  and  rulers  of  the  church,  above  all 
to  the  apostles  and  apostolic  men,  in  proportion  to  the  extent  of 
their  respective  fields  of  labor.  Peter  warns  his  co-presbyters 
against  the  temptation  to  hierarchical  arrogance  and  tyranny 
over  conscience,  of  which  so  many  priests,  bishops,  patriarchs, 
and  popes  have  since  been  guilty ; and  points  them  to  the  sub- 
lime example  of  the  great  Shepherd  and  Archbishop,  who,  in 
infinite  love,  laid  down  his  life  for  the  sheep.7 

9.  The  gift  of  miracles  8 is  the  power  possessed  by  the  apos- 
tles and  apostolic  men,  like  Stephen,  to  heal  all  sorts  of  physical 
maladies,  to  cast  out  demons,  to  raise  the  dead,  and  perform 
other  similar  works,  in  virtue  of  an  extraordinary  energy  or 
faith,  by  word,  prayer,  and  the  laying  on  of  hands  in  the  name 
of  Jesus,  and  for  his  glory.  These  miracles  were  outward  ere 
dentials  and  seals  of  the  divine  mission  of  the  apostles  in  a time 
and  among  a people  which  required  such  sensible  helps  to  faith. 
Put  as  Christianity  became  established  in  the  world,  it  could 
point  to  its  continued  moral  effects  as  the  best  evidence  of  its 
truth,  and  the  necessity  for  outward  physical  miracles  ceased. 

1 <rrju€?ov.  1 Cor.  14 : 22.  5 eppijvela  y\o/<r<ru>v. 

3 Of  the  it vfvfia.  4 Of  the  vovs. 

5 Sicucoyla,  ayrtX^if/eis.  6 Kufiepy^(rei^,  gubemationes. 

7 1 Pet.  5 : 1—4.  8 ^dpia/ia  la/idruv,  Hvvapus  arj/xeicoy  icai  reparwy. 


440 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


10.  Finally,  the  gift  of  love,  the  greatest,  most  precious, 
most  useful,  most  needful,  and  most  enduring  of  all,  described 
and  extolled  by  St.  Paul  in  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  1 Corim 
tliians  with  the  pen  of  an  angel  in  the  vision  and  enjoyment  of 
the  God  of  infinite  love  himself.1  Love  is  natural  kindness  and 
affection  sanctified  and  raised  to  the  spiritual  sphere,  or  rather  a 
new  heavenly  affection  created  in  the  soul  by  the  experience  of 
the  saving  love  of  God  in  Christ.  As  faith  lies  at  the  bottom 
of  all  charisms,  so  love  is  not  properly  a separate  gift,  but  the 
soul  of  all  the  gifts,  guarding  them  from  abuse  for  selfish  and 
ambitious  purposes,  making  them  available  for  the  common 
good,  ruling,  uniting,  and  completing  them.  It  alone  gives 
them  their  true  value,  and  without  love  even  the  speaking  with 
tongues  of  angels,  and  a faith  which  removes  mountains,  are 
nothing  before  God.  It  holds  heaven  and  earth  in  its  embrace. 
It  “ believeth  all  things,”  and  when  faith  fails,  it  “ hopeth  all 
things,”  and  when  hope  fails,  it  “ enduretli  all  things,”  but  it 
“ never  fails.”  As  love  is  the  most  needful  of  all  the  gifts  on 
earth,  so  it  will  also  outlast  all  the  others,  and  be  the  ornament 
and  joy  of  the  saints  in  heaven.  For  love  is  the  inmost  essence, 
the  heart,  as  it  were,  of  God,  the  ground  of  all  his  attributes, 
and  the  motive  of  all  his  works.  It  is  the  beginning  and  the 
end  of  creation,  redemption,  and  sanctification — the  link  which 
unites  us  with  the  triune  God,  the  cardinal  virtue  of  Chris- 
tianity, the  fulfilling  of  the  law,  the  bond  of  perfectness,  and 
the  fountain  of  bliss. 

' The  Revision  of  1881  has  substituted,  in  1 Cor.  ch.  13,  “love”  (with 
Tyndale,  Cranmer,  and  Geneva  Vers.)  for  “ charity”  (which  came  into  James’s 
Version  from  the  Vulgate  through  the  Rheims  Vers.).  This  change  has  given 
great  offence  among  conservative  people.  It  may  indeed  involve  a loss  of 
rhythm  in  that  wonderful  chapter,  but  it  was  necessitated  by  the  restricted 
meaning  which  charity  has  assumed  in  modern  usage,  being  identical  with 
practical  benevolence,  so  that  Paul  might  seem  to  contradict  himself  in  verses 
3 and  8.  The  Saxon  word  love  is  just  as  strong,  as  musical,  and  as  sacred  as 
the  Latin  charity,  and  its  meaning  is  far  more  comprehensive  and  enduring, 
embracing  both  God’s  love  to  man  and  man’s  love  to  God,  and  to  his  neighbor, 
both  here  and  hereafter. 


§ 4G.  CHRISTIANITY  IN  INDIVIDUALS. 


441 


§ 46.  Christianity  in  Individuals . 

The  transforming  spiritual  power  of  Christianity  appears  first 
in  the  lives  of  individuals.  The  apostles  and  primitive  Chris- 
tians rose  to  a morality  and  piety  far  above  that  of  the  heroes 
of  heathen  virtue  and  even  that  of  the  Jewish  saints.  Their 
daily  walk  was  a living  union  with  Christ,  ever  seeking  the 
glory  of  God  and  the  salvation  of  men.  Many  of  the  cardinal 
virtues,  humility,  for  example,  and  love  for  enemies,  were  un- 
known before  the  Christian  day. 

Peter,  Paul,  and  John  represent  the  various  leading  forms  or 
types  of  Christian  piety,  as  well  as  of  theology.  They  were  not 
without  defect,  indeed  they  themselves  acknowledged  only  one 
sinless  being,  their  Lord  and  Master,  and  they  confessed  their 
own  shortcomings  ; 1 yet  they  were  as  nearly  perfect  as  it  is  pos- 
sible to  be  in  a sinful  world ; and  the  moral  influence  of  their 
lives  and  writings  on  all  generations  of  the  church  is  absolutely 
immeasurable.  Each  exhibits  the  spirit  and  life  of  Christ  in  a 
peculiar  way.  For  the  gospel  does  not  destroy,  but  redeems  and 
sanctifies  the  natural  talents  and  tempers  of  men.  It  consecrates 
the  fire  of  a Peter,  the  energy  of  a Paul,  and  the  pensiveness  of 
a John  to  the  same  service  of  God.  It  most  strikingly  displays 
its  new  creating  power  in  the  sudden  conversion  of  the  apostle 
of  the  Gentiles  from  a most  dangerous  foe  to  a most  efficient 
friend  of  the  church.  Upon  Paul  the  Spirit  of  God  came  as 
an  overwhelming  storm ; upon  John,  as  a gentle,  refreshing 
breeze.  But  in  all  dwelt  the  same  new,  supernatural,  divine 
principle  of  life.  All  are  living  apologies  for  Christianity, 
whose  force  no  truth-loving  heart  can  resist. 

Notice,  too,  the  moral  effects  of  the  gospel  in  the  female 
characters  of  the  New  Testament.  Christianity  raises  woman 
from  the  slavish  position  which  she  held  both  in  Judaism  and  in 
heathendom,  to  her  true  moral  dignity  and  importance ; makes 

1 Comp.  Phil.  3 : 12-14  ; 2 Cor.  4 : 7 sqq.  ; 12:7;  1 Cor.  9 : 27  ; Jaa.  3 : 2; 
1 John  1 : 8,  9 ; Gal.  2:11;  Acts  15  : 36-39  ; 23  : 3 sqq. 


442 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


her  an  heir  of  the  same  salvation  with  man,1  and  opens  to  ner  A 
field  for  the  noblest  and  loveliest  virtues,  without  thrusting  her, 
after  the  manner  of  modern  pseudo-philanthropic  schemes  of 
emancipation,  out  of  her  appropriate  sphere  of  private,  domes- 
tic life,  and  thus  stripping  her  of  her  fairest  ornament  and 
peculiar  charm. 

The  Virgin  Mary  marks  the  turning  point  in  the  history  of 
the  female  sex.  As  the  mother  of  Christ,  the  second  Adam, 
she  corresponds  to  Eve,  and  is,  in  a spiritual  sense,  the  mother 
of  all  living.2  In  her,  the  “ blessed  among  women,”  the  whole 
sex  was  blessed,  and  the  curse  removed  which  had  hung  over 
the  era  of  the  fall.  She  was  not,  indeed,  free  from  actual 
and  native  sin,  as  is  now  taught,  without  the  slightest  ground 
in  Scripture,  by  the  Homan  church  since  the  8th  of  Decem- 
ber, 1854.  On  the  contrary,  as  a daughter  of  Adam,  she 
needed,  like  all  men,  redemption  and  sanctification  through 
Christ,  the  sole  author  of  sinless  holiness,  and  she  herself  ex- 
pressly calls  God  her  Saviour.3  But  in  the  mother  and  educator 
of  the  Saviour  of  the  world  we  no  doubt  may  and  should  revere, 
though  not  worship,  the  model  of  female  Christian  virtue,  of 
purity,  tenderness,  simplicity,  humility,  perfect  obedience  to 
God,  and  unreserved  surrender  to  Christ.  Next  to  her  we  have 
a lovely  group  of  female  disciples  and  friends  around  the  Lord  : 
Mary,  the  wife  of  Clopas  ; Salome,  the  mother  of  James  and 
John ; Mary  of  Bethany,  who  sat  at  Jesus’  feet ; her  busy  and 
hospitable  sister,  Martha ; Mary  of  Magdala,  whom  the  Lord 
healed  of  a demoniacal  possession  ; the  sinner,  who  washed  his 
feet  with  her  tears  of  penitence  and  wiped  them  with  her  hair ; 
and  all  the  noble  women,  who  ministered  to  the  Son  of  man  in 
his  earthly  poverty  with  the  gifts  of  their  love,4  lingered  last 
around  his  cross,5  and  were  the  first  at  his  open  sepulchre  on  the 
morning  of  the  resurrection.® 

1 1 Pet.  3:7;  Gal.  3:28. 

2 Gen.  3 : 20.  This  parallel  was  first  drawn  by  Irenaeus,  but  overdrawn  and 
abused  by  later  fathers  in  the  service  of  Mariolatry. 

3 Luke  1 : 47  iirl  r<p  t<£  aanrjpl  fiov.  4 Luke  8 : 3;  Matt.  27:55;  Mark  15  : 41. 

6 John  19  : 15.  6 Matt.  28  : 1 ; John  20  : 1. 


§ 47.  CHRISTIANITY  AND  THE  FAMILY.  443 

Henceforth  we  find  woman  no  longer  a slave  of  man  and 
tool  of  lust,  but  the  pride  and  joy  of  her  husband,  the  fond 
mother  training  her  children  to  virtue  and  godliness,  the  orna- 
ment and  treasure  of  the  family,  the  faithful  sister,  the  zealous 
servant  of  the  congregation  in  every  work  of  Christian  charity, 
the  sister  of  mercy,  the  martyr  with  superhuman  courage,  the 
guardian  angel  of  peace,  the  example  of  purity,  humility,  gentle- 
ness, patience,  love,  and  fidelity  unto  death.  Such  women 
were  unknown  before.  The  heathen  Libanius,  the  enthusiastic 
eulogist  of  old  Grecian  culture,  pronounced  an  involuntary 
eulogy  on  Christianity  when  he  exclaimed,  as  he  looked  at  the 
mother  of  Chrysostom : “ What  women  the  Christians  have ! ” 

§ 47.  Christianity  and  the  Family . 

H.  Gregoere  : De  Vinfluence  du  christianisme  sur  la  condition  des  femmes. 

Paris,  1821. 

F.  Munteb  : Die  Christin  im  heidnischen  Hause  vor  den  Zeiten  Constantin's 
des  Grossen.  Kopenhagen,  1828. 

Julia  Kavanagh  : Women  of  Christianity , Exemplary  for  Acts  of  Piety 
and  Charity.  Lond.,  1851 ; N.  York,  1866. 

Thus  raising  the  female  sex  to  its  true  freedom  and  dignity, 
Christianity  transforms  and  sanctifies  the  entire  family  life.  It 
abolishes  polygamy,  and  makes  monogamy  the  proper  form  of 
marriage  ; it  condemns  concubinage  with  all  forms  of  unchastity 
and  impurity.  It  presents  the  mutual  duties  of  husband  and 
wife,  and  of  parents  and  children,  in  their  true  light,  and  ex- 
hibits marriage  as  a copy  of  the  mystical  union  of  Christ  with 
his  bride,  the  church ; thus  imparting  to  it  a holy  character  and 
a heavenly  end.1 

Henceforth  the  family,  though  still  rooted,  as  before,  in  the 
soil  of  nature,  in  the  mystery  of  sexual  love,  is  spiritualized- 
and  becomes  a nursery  of  the  purest  and  noblest  virtues,  a 
miniature  church,  where  the  father,  as  shepherd,  daily  leads  his 
household  into  the  pastures  of  the  divine  word,  and,  as  priest, 

1 Comp.  Eph.  5 : 22-23 ; 6:1-9;  Col  3 : 18-25. 


444 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


offers  to  the  Lord  the  sacrifice  of  their  common  petition,  inter, 
cession,  thanksgiving,  and  praise. 

With  the  married  state,  the  single  also,  as  an  exception  to  the 
rule,  is  consecrated  by  the  gospel  to  the  service  of  the  kingdom 
of  God ; as  we  see  in  a Paul,  a Barnabas,  and  a John,1  and  in 
the  history  of  missions  and  of  ascetic  piety.  The  enthusiasm 
for  celibacy,  which  spread  so  soon  throughout  the  ancient  church, 
must  be  regarded  as  a one-sided,  though  natural  and,  upon  the 
whole,  beneficial  reaction  against  the  rotten  condition  and  misery 
of  family  life  among  the  heathen. 


§ 48.  Christianity  and  Slavery . 

Literature. 

H.  Wallon  (Prof,  of  Modern  History  in  Paris) : Histoire  de  Vesclavage 
dans  Vantiquite,  Par.  1879,  3 vols.,  treats  very  thoroughly  of  Slavery 
in  the  Orient,  among  the  Greeks  and  the  Romans,  with  an  Intro- 
duction on  modern  negro  slavery  in  the  Colonies. 

Augustin  Cochin  (ancien  maire  et  conseiller  municipal  de  la  ville  de 
Paris)  : L' abolition  de  Vesclavage , Paris,  1862,  2 vols.  This  work 
treats  not  only  of  the  modern  abolition  of  slavery,  but  includes  in 
vol.  II.,  p.  348-470,  an  able  discussion  of  the  relation  of  Chris- 
tianity and  slavery. 

Mohler  (R.  C.,  d.  1848)  : BruchstilcJce  aus  der  Geschichte  der  Aufhebung 
der  Sklaverei,  1834.  (“  Vermischte  Schriften,”  vol.  II.,  p.  54.) 

H.  Wiskemann  : Die  Sklaverei.  Leiden,  1866.  A crowned  prize-essay. 

P.  Axlard  : Les  esclaves  chretiens  depuis  les  premiers  temps  de  V eglise  jusquy 
a la  jin  de  la  domination  romaine  en  Occident.  Paris,  1876  (480  pp.). 

G.  Y.  Lechler  : Sklaverei  und  Christenthum.  Leipz.  1877-78. 

Ph.  Schaff:  Slavery  and  the  Bible,  in  his  “Christ  and  Christianity,” 
N.  York  and  London,  1885,  pp.  184-212. 

Compare  the  Commentaries  on  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  Philemon,  es- 
pecially Braune,  and  Lightfoot  (in  Colossians  and  Philemon , 1875). 

The  numerous  American  works  on  slavery  by  Channing,  Parker,  Hodge, 
Barnes,  Wilson,  Cheever,  Bledsoe,  and  others,  relate  to  the  question 
of  negro  slavery,  now  providentially  abolished  by  the  civil  war  oi 
1861-65. 


1 Comp.  Matt.  19  : 10-12  ; 1 Cor.  7 : 7 sqq.  ; Rev.  14  : 4. 


§ 48.  CHRISTIANITY  AND  SLAVERY. 


445 


To  Christianity  we  owe  the  gradual  extinction  of  slavery. 

This  evil  has  rested  as  a curse  on  all  nations,  and  at  the  time 
of  Christ  the  greater  part  of  the  existing  race  was  bound  in 
beastly  degradation — even  in  civilized  Greece  and  home  the 
slaves  being  more  numerous  than  the  free-born  and  the  freed- 
men.  The  greatest  philosophers  of  antiquity  vindicated  slavery 
as  a natural  and  necessary  institution  ; and  Aristotle  declared  all 
barbarians  to  be  slaves  by  birth,  fit  for  nothing  but  obedience. 
According  to  the  Homan  law,  “ slaves  had  no  head  in  the  State, 
no  name,  no  title,  no  register” ; they  had  no  rights  of  matrimony, 
and  no  protection  against  adultery ; they  could  be  bought  and 
sold,  or  given  away,  as  personal  property ; they  might  be  tor- 
tured for  evidence,  or  even  put  to  death,  at  the  discretion  of 
their  master.  In  the  language  of  a distinguished  writer  on  civil 
law,  the  slaves  in  the  Homan  empire  “ were  in  a much  worse  state 
than  any  cattle  whatsoever.”  Cato  the  elder  expelled  his  old 
and  sick  slaves  out  of  house  and  home.  Hadrian,  one  of  the 
most  humane  of  the  emperors,  wilfully  destroyed  the  eye  of 
one  of  his  slaves  with  a pencil.  Homan  ladies  punished  their 
maids  with  sharp  iron  instruments  for  the  most  trifling  offences, 
while  attending,  half-naked,  on  their  toilet.  Such  legal  degra- 
dation and  cruel  treatment  had  the  worst  effect  upon  the  charac- 
ter of  the  slaves.  They  are  described  bv  the  ancient  writers  as 
mean,  cowardly,  abject,  false,  voracious,  intemperate,  voluptuous, 
also  as  hard  and  cruel  when  placed  over  others.  A proverb  pre- 
vailed in  the  Homan  empire  : “ As  many  slaves,  so  many  ene- 
mies.” Hence  the  constant  danger  of  servile  insurrections, 
which  more  than  once  brought  the  republic  to  the  brink  of  ruin, 
and  seemed  to  justify  the  severest  measures  in  self-defence. 

Judaism,  indeed,  stood  on  higher  ground  than  this;  yet  it 
tolerated  slavery,  though  with  wise  precautions  against  maltreat- 
ment, and  with  the  significant  ordinance,  that  in  the  year  of 
jubilee,  which  prefigured  the  renovation  of  the  theocracy,  all 
Hebrew  slaves  should  go  free.1 

1 Lev.  25 : 10  : “Ye  shall  hallow  the  fiftieth  year,  and  proclaim  liberty  through- 
out the  land  unto  all  the  inhabitants  thereof.’'  Comp.  Isa.  41  : 1 ; Luke  4 19. 


446 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


This  system  of  permanent  oppression  and  moral  degradation 
the  gospel  opposes  rather  by  its  whole  spirit  than  by  any  special 
law.  It  nowhere  recommends  outward  violence  and  revolution- 
ary measures,  which  in  those  times  would  have  been  worse 
than  useless,  but  provides  an  internal  radical  cure,  which  first 
mitigates  the  evil,  takes  away  its  sting,  and  effects  at  last  its 
entire  abolition.  Christianity  aims,  first  of  all,  to  redeem  man, 
without  regard  to  rank  or  condition,  from  that  worst  bondage, 
the  curse  of  sin,  and  to  give  him  true  spiritual  freedom ; it  con- 
firms the  original  unity  of  all  men  in  the  image  of  God,  and 
teaches  the  common  redemption  and  spiritual  equality  of  all  be- 
fore God  in  Christ ; 1 it  insists  on  love  as  the  highest  duty  and 
virtue,  which  itself  inwardly  levels  social  distinctions;  and  it 
addresses  the  comfort  and  consolation  of  the  gospel  particularly 
to  all  the  poor,  the  persecuted,  and  the  oppressed.  Paul  sent 
back  to  his  earthly  master  the  fugitive  slave,  Onesimus,  whom 
he  had  converted  to  Christ  and  to  his  duty,  that  he  might 
restore  his  character  where  he  had  lost  it ; but  he  expressly 
charged  Philemon  to  receive  and  treat  the  bondman  hereafter 
as  a beloved  brother  in  Christ,  yea,  as  the  apostle’s  own  heart. 
It  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  a more  radical  cure  of  the  evil  in 
those  times  and  within  the  limits  of  established  laws  and 
customs.  And  it  is  impossible  to  find  in  ancient  literature  a 
parallel  to  the  little  Epistle  to  Philemon  for  gentlemanly  cour- 
tesy and  delicacy,  as  well  as  for  tender  sympathy  with  a poor 
slave. 

This  Christian  spirit  of  love,  humanity,  justice,  and  freedom, 
as  it  pervades  the  whole  New  Testament,  has  also,  in  fact,  grad- 
ually abolished  the  institution  of  slavery  in  almost  all  civilized 
nations,  and  will  not  rest  till  all  the  chains  of  sin  and  misery  are 
broken,  till  the  personal  and  eternal  dignity  of  man  redeemed 
by  Christ  is  universally  acknowledged,  and  the  evangelical  free- 
dom  and  brotherhood  of  men  are  perfectly  attained. 


Gal.  3:28;  Col.  3:  11. 


§ 48.  CHRISTIANITY  AND  SLAVERY. 


447 


Note  on  the  Number  and  Condition  op  Slaves  in  Greece  and  Rome. 

Attica  numbered,  according  to  Ctesicles,  under  tlie  governorship  ol 
Demetrius  the  Phalerian  (309  b.o.),  400,000  slaves,  10,000  foreigners, 
and  only  21,000  free  citizens.  In  Sparta  the  disproportion  was  still 
greater. 

As  to  the  Roman  empire,  Gibbon  estimates  the  number  of  slaves 
under  the  reign  of  Claudius  at  no  less  than  one  half  of  the  entire  popu- 
lation, i.e.,  about  sixty  millions  (I.  52,  ed.  Milman,  N.  Y.,  1850).  Ac- 
cording to  Robertson  there  were  twice  as  many  slaves  as  free  citizens, 
and  Blair  (in  his  work  on  Roman  slavery,  Edinb.  1833,  p.  15)  estimates 
over  three  slaves  to  one  freeman  between  the  conquest  of  Greece  (146 
b.c.)  and  the  reign  of  Alexander  Severus  (a.d.  222-235).  The  propor- 
tion was  of  course  very  different  in  the  cities  and  in  the  rural  districts. 
The  majority  of  the  plebs  urbana  were  poor  and  unable  to  keep  slaves  ; 
and  the  support  of  slaves  in  the  city  was  much  more  expensive  than  in 
the  country.  Marquardt  assumes  the  proportion  of  slaves  to  freemen 
in  Rome  to  have  been  three  to  two.  Eriedlander  ( Sittengeschichte  Roms. 
I.  55,  fourth  ed.)  thinks  it  impossible  to  make  a correct  general  estimate, 
as  we  do  not  know  the  number  of  wealthy  families.  But  we  know  that 
Rome  a.d.  24  was  thrown  into  consternation  by  the  fear  of  a slave  in- 
surrection (Tacit.  Ann.  IV.  27).  Athenaeus,  as  quoted  by  Gibbon  (I. 
51)  boldly  asserts  that  he  knew  very  many  (nannoWoi)  Romans  who 
possessed,  not  for  use,  but  ostentation,  ten  and  even  twenty  thousand 
slaves.  In  a single  palace  at  Rome,  that  of  Pedanius  Secundus,  then 
prefect  of  the  city,  four  hundred  slaves  were  maintained,  and  were  all 
executed  for  not  preventing  their  master’s  murder  (Tacit.  Ann.  XIV. 
42,  43). 

The  legal  condition  of  the  slaves  is  thus  described  by  Taylor  on  Civil 
Lean,  as  quoted  in  Cooper’s  Justinian,  p.  411:  “Slaves  were  held  pro 
nullis,  pro  mortuis,  pro  quadrupedibus  ; nay,  were  in  a much  worse  state 
than  any  cattle  whatsoever.  They  had  no  head  in  the  state,  no  name, 
no  title,  or  register ; they  were  not  capable  of  being  injured  ; nor  could 
they  take  by  purchase  or  descent ; they  had  no  heirs,  and  therefore 
could  make  no  will ; they  were  not  entitled  to  the  rights  and  considera- 
tions of  matrimony,  and  therefore  had  no  relief  in  case  of  adultery  ; nor 
were  they  proper  objects  of  cognation  or  affinity,  but  of  quasi-cognation 
only ; they  could  be  sold,  transferred,  or  pawned,  as  goods  or  personal 
estate,  for  goods  they  were,  and  as  such  they  were  esteemed ; they 
might  be  tortured  for  evidence,  punished  at  the  discretion,  of  their  lord, 
and  even  put  to  death  by  his  authority  ; together  with  many  other  civil 
incapacities  which  I have  no  room  to  enumerate.”  Gibbon  (I.  48) 
thinks  that  “ against  such  internal  enemies,  whose  desperate  insurrec- 
tions had  more  than  once  reduced  the  republic  to  the  brink  of  destruc- 


448 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


tion,  the  most  severe  regulations  and  the  most  cruel  treatment  seemed 
almost  justifiable  by  the  great  law  of  self-preservation.” 

The  individual  treatment  of  slaves  depended  on  the  character  of  the 
master.  As  a rule  it  was  harsh  and  cruel.  The  bloody  spectacles  of  the 
amphitheatre  stupefied  the  finer  sensibilities  even  in  women.  Juvenal 
describes  a Roman  mistress  who  ordered  her  female  slaves  to  be  unmer- 
cifully lashed  in  her  presence  till  the  whippers  were  worn  out ; Ovid 
warns  the  ladies  not  to  scratch  the  face  or  stick  needles  into  the  naked 
arms  of  the  servants  who  adorned  them ; and  before  Hadrian  a mistress 
could  condemn  a slave  to  the  death  of  crucifixion  without  assigning  a 
reason.  See  the  references  in  Friedlander,  I.  46G.  It  is  but  just  to  re- 
mark that  the  philosophers  of  the  first  and  second  century,  Seneca, 
Pliny,  and  Plutarch,  entertained  much  milder  views  on  this  subject  than 
the  older  writers,  and  commend  a humane  treatment  of  the  slaves ; also 
that  the  Antonines  improved  their  condition  to  some  extent,  and  took 
the  oft  abused  jurisdiction  of  life  and  death  over  the  slaves  out  of  private 
hands  and  vested  it  in  the  magistrates.  But  at  that  time  Christian 
principles  and  sentiments  already  freely  circulated  throughout  the  em- 
pire, and  exerted  a silent  influence  even  over  the  educated  heathen. 
This  unconscious  atmospheric  influence,  so  to  speak,  is  continually 
exerted  by  Christianity  over  the  surrounding  world,  which  without  this 
would  be  far  worse  than  it  actually  is. 

§ 49.  Christianity  and  Society . 

Christianity  enters  with  its  leaven-like  virtue  the  whole  civil 
and  social  life  of  a people,  and  leads  it  on  the  path  of  prog- 
ress in  all  genuine  civilization.  It  nowhere  prescribes,  indeed, 
a particular  form  of  government,  and  carefully  abstains  from 
all  improper  interference  with  political  and  secular  affairs.  It 
accommodates  itself  to  monarchical  and  republican  institutions, 
and  can  flourish  even  under  oppression  and  persecution  from  the 
State,  as  the  history  of  the  first  three  centuries  sufficiently  shows. 
But  it  teaches  the  true  nature  and  aim  of  all  government,  and 
the  duties  of  rulers  and  subjects ; it  promotes  the  abolition  of 
bad  laws  and  institutions,  and  the  establishment  of  good ; it  is 
in  principle  opposed  alike  to  despotism  and  anarchy ; it  tends, 
under  every  form  of  government,  towards  order,  propriety,  jus- 
tice, humanity,  and  peace ; it  fills  the  ruler  with  a sense  of 
responsibility  to  the  supreme  king  and  judge,  and  the  ruled 
with  the  spirit  of  loyalty,  virtue,  and  piety. 


§ 49.  CHRISTIANITY  AND  SOCIETY. 


449 


Finally,  the  Gospel  reforms  the  international  relations  by 
breaking  down  the  partition  walls  of  prejudice  and  hatred  among 
the  different  nations  and  races.  It  unites  in  brotherly  fellowship 
and  harmony  around  the  same  communion  table  even  the  Jews 
and  the  Gentiles,  once  so  bitterly  separate  and  hostile.  The 
spirit  of  Christianity,  truly  catholic  or  universal,  rises  above  all 
national  distinctions.  Like  the  congregation  at  Jerusalem,  the 
whole  apostolic  church  was  of  “one  heart  and  of  one  soul.”  1 It 
had  its  occasional  troubles,  indeed,  temporary  collisions  between  a 
Peter  and  a Paul,  between  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians ; but 
instead  of  wondering  at  these,  we  must  admire  the  constant 
victory  of  the  spirit  of  harmony  and  love  over  the  remaining 
forces  of  the  old  nature  and  of  a former  state  of  things.  The 
poor  Gentile  Christians  of  Paul’s  churches  in  Greece  sent  their 
charities  to  the  poor  Jewish  Christians  in  Palestine,  and  thus 
proved  their  gratitude  for  the  gospel  and  its  fellowship,  which 
they  had  received  from  that  mother  church.2  The  Christians 
all  felt  themselves  to  be  “ brethren,”  were  constantly  impressed 
with  their  common  origin  and  their  common  destiny,  and  con- 
sidered it  their  sacred  duty  to  “ keep  the  unity  of  the  spirit  in 
the  bond  of  peace.”  3 "While  the  J ews,  in  their  spiritual  pride 
and  “ odium  generis  Jiumani  ” abhorred  all  Gentiles ; while  the 
Greeks  despised  all  barbarians  as  only  half  men ; and  while  the 
Romans,  with  all  their  might  and  policy,  could  bring  their  con- 
quered nations  only  into  a mechanical  conglomeration,  a giant 
body  without  a soul ; Christianity,  by  purely  moral  means, 
founded  a universal  spiritual  empire  and  a communion  of  saints, 
which  stands  unshaken  to  this  day,  and  will  spread  till  it  em- 
braces all  the  nations  of  the  earth  as  its  living  members,  and 
reconciles  all  to  God. 

1 Acts  4 : 32. 

* Gal.  2:10;  2 Cor.  9:12-15;  Rom.  15  : 25-27. 

* Gal.  3 : 28 ; Eph.  4 : 3. 


450 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


§ 50.  Sjpfo'itual  Condition  of  the  Congregations . — The  Seven 
Churches  in  Asia . 

We  must  not  suppose  that  the  high  standard  of  holiness  set 
up  in  doctrine  and  example  by  the  evangelists  and  apostles  was 
fully  realized  in  their  congregations.  The  dream  of  the  spot- 
less purity  and  perfection  of  the  apostolic  church  finds  no 
support  in  the  apostolic  writings,  except  as  an  ideal  which  is 
constantly  held  up  before  our  vision  to  stimulate  our  ener- 
gies. If  the  inspired  apostles  themselves  disclaimed  perfection, 
much  less  can  we  expect  it  from  their  converts,  who  had  just 
come  from  the  errors  and  corruptions  of  Jewish  and  heathen 
society,  and  could  not  be  transformed  at  once  without  a miracle 
in  violation  of  the  ordinary  laws  of  moral  growth. 

We  find,  in  fact,  that  every  Epistle  meets  some  particular 
difficulty  and  danger.  No  letter  of  Paul  can  be  understood 
without  the  admission  of  the  actual  imperfection  of  his  congre- 
gations. He  found  it  necessary  to  warn  them  even  against  the 
vulgar  sins  of  the  flesh  as  well  as  against  the  refined  sins  of  the 
spirit.  He  cheerfully  and  thankfully  commended  their  virtues, 
and  as  frankly  and  fearlessly  condemned  their  errors  and  vices. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  churches  addressed  in  the  Catholic 
Epistles,  and  in  the  Revelation  of  John.1 

The  seven  Epistles  in  the  second  and  third  chapters  of  the 
Apocalypse  give  us  a glimpse  of  the  church  in  its  light  and 
shade  in  the  last  stage  of  the  apostolic  age — primarily  in  Asia 
Minor,  but  through  it  also  in  other  lands.  These  letters  are  all 
very  much  alike  in  their  plan,  and  present  a beautiful  order, 
which  has  been  well  pointed  out  by  Bengel.  They  contain 
(1)  a command  of  Christ  to  write  to  the  “ angel  ” of  the  congre- 
gation. (2)  A designation  of  Jesus  by  some  imposing  title,  which 
generally  refers  to  his  majestic  appearance  (1 : 13  sqq.),  and  serves 

1 The  remainder  of  this  paragraph  is  taken  in  part  from  my  Hist,  of  the 
Apost.  Church  (§  108,  pp.  427  sqq.),  where  it  is  connected  with  the  life  and 
labors  of  St.  John.  Comp,  also  the  monographs  of  Trench  and  Plumptre  on 
the  Seven  Churches,  and  Lange’s  Com.  on  Rev.  chs.  2 and  3. 


§ 50.  CONDITION  OF  THE  CONGREGATIONS.  451 

as  the  basis  and  warrant  of  the  subsequent  promises  and  threat- 
enings.  (3)  The  address  to  the  angel,  or  the  responsible  head  of 
the  congregation,  be  it  a single  bishop  or  the  college  of  pastors 
and  teachers.  The  angels  are,  at  all  events,  the  representatives 
of  the  people  committed  to  their  charge,  and  what  was  said  to 
them  applies  at  the  same  time  to  the  churches.  This  address, 
or  the  epistle  proper,  consists  always  of  ( a ) a short  sketch  of 
the  present  moral  condition  of  the  congregation — both  its  vir- 
tues and  defects — with  commendation  or  censure  as  the  case 
may  be ; ( b ) an  exhortation  either  to  repentance  or  to  faithful- 
ness and  patience,  according  to  the  prevailing  character  of  the 
church  addressed;  ( c ) a promise  to  him  who  overcomes,  to- 
gether with  the  admonition : “ He  that  hath  an  ear,  let  him 
hear  what  the  Spirit  saith  unto  the  churches,”  or  the  same  in 
the  reverse  order,  as  in  the  first  three  epistles.  This  latter  vari- 
ation divides  the  seven  churches  into  two  groups,  one  compris- 
ing the  first  three,  the  other  the  remaining  four,  just  as  the 
seven  seals,  the  seven  trumpets,  and  the  seven  vials  are  divided. 
The  ever-recurring  admonition : “ lie  that  hath  an  ear,”  etc., 
consists  of  ten  words.  This  is  no  unmeaning  play,  but  an  appli- 
cation of  the  Old  Testament  system  of  symbolical  numbers,  in 
which  three  was  the  symbol  of  the  Godhead  ; four  of  the  world 
or  humanity ; the  indivisible  number  seven,  the  sum  of  three 
and  four  (as  also  twelve,  their  product),  the  symbol  of  the  in- 
dissoluble covenant  between  God  and  man ; and  ten  (seven  and 
three),  the  round  number,  the  symbol  of  fulness  and  comple- 
tion. 

As  to  their  moral  and  religious  condition,  the  churches  and 
the  representatives  fall,  according  to  the  Epistles,  into  three 
classes : 

1.  Those  which  were  predominantly  good  and  pure,  viz.,  those 
of  Smyrna  and  Philadelphia.  Hence,  in  the  messages  to  these 
two  churches  we  find  no  exhortation  to  repentance  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  word,  but  only  an  encouragement  to  be  steadfast, 
patient,  and  joyful  under  suffering. 

The  church  of  Smyrna  (a  very  ancient,  still  flourishing  com- 


452 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


mercial  city  in  Ionia,  beautifully  located  on  the  bay  of  Smyrna) 
was  externally  poor  and  persecuted,  and  had  still  greater  tribu- 
lation in  view,  but  is  cheered  with  the  prospect  of  the  crown  of 
life.  It  was  in  the  second  century  ruled  by  Polycarp,  a pupil  of 
John,  and  a faithful  martyr. 

Philadelphia  (a  city  built  by  king  Attalus  Philadelphus,  and 
named  after  him,  now  Ala-Schar),  in  the  province  of  Lydia,  a 
rich  wine  region,  but  subject  to  earthquakes,  was  the  seat  of  a 
church  likewise  poor  and  small  outwardly,  but  very  faithful  and 
spiritually  flourishing — a church  which  was  to  have  all  the  tribu- 
lations and  hostility  it  met  with  on  earth  abundantly  rewarded 
in  heaven. 

2.  Churches  which  were  in  aj 'predominantly  evil  and  criti- 
cal condition , viz.,  those  of  Sardis  and  Laodicea.  Here  accord- 
ingly we  find  severe  censure  and  earnest  exhortation  to  repent- 
ance. 

The  church  at  Sardis  (till  the  time  of  Croesus  the  flourishing 
capital  of  the  Lydian  empire,  but  now  a miserable  hamlet  of 
shepherds)  had  indeed  the  name  and  outward  form  of  Chris- 
tianity, but  not  its  inward  power  of  faith  and  life.  Hence  it  was 
on  the  brink  of  spiritual  death.  Yet  the  Epistle,  3 : 4 sq.,  dis- 
tinguishes from  the  corrupt  mass  a few  souls  which  had  kept 
their  walk  undefiled,  without,  however,  breaking  away  from  the 
congregation  as  separatists,  and  setting  up  an  opposition  sect 
for  themselves. 

The  church  of  Laodicea  (a  wealthy  commercial  city  of  Phry- 
gia, not  far  from  Colosse  and  Hierapolis,  where  now  stands  only 
a desolate  village  by  the  name  of  Eski-Hissar)  proudly  fancied 
itself  spiritually  rich  and  faultless,  but  was  in  truth  poor  and 
blind  and  naked,  and  in  that  most  dangerous  state  of  indiffer- 
ence and  lukewarmness  from  which  it  is  more  difficult  to  return 
to  the  former  decision  and  ardor,  than  it  was  to  pass  at  first 
from  the  natural  coldness  to  faith.  Hence  the  fearful  threaten- 
ing : “ I will  spew  thee  out  of  my  mouth.”  (Lukewarm  water 
produces  vomiting.)  Yet  even  the  Laodiceans  are  not  driven  to 
despair.  The  Lord,  in  love,  knocks  at  their  door  and  promises 


§ 50.  CONDITION  OF  THE  CONGREGATIONS.  453 

them,  on  condition  of  thorough  repentance,  a part  in  the  mar- 
riage-supper of  the  lamb  (3  : 20). 

3.  Churches  of  a mixed  character,  viz.,  those  of  Ephesus, 
Pergamum,  and  Tliyatira.  In  these  cases  commendation  and 
censure,  promise  and  threatening  are  united. 

Ephesus,  then  the  metropolis  of  the  Asian  church,  had  with- 
stood, indeed,  the  Gnostic  errorists  predicted  by  Paul,  and 
faithfully  maintained  the  purity  of  the  doctrine  delivered  to  it ; 
but  it  had  lost  the  ardor  of  its  first  love,  and  it  is,  therefore, 
earnestly  exhorted  to  repent.  It  thus  represents  to  us  that  state 
of  dead,  petrified  orthodoxy,  into  which  various  churches  often- 
times fall.  Zeal  for  pure  doctrine  is,  indeed,  of  the  highest  im- 
portance, but  worthless  without  living  piety  and  active  love. 
The  Epistle  to  the  angel  of  the  church  of  Ephesus  is  peculiarly 
applicable  to  the  later  Greek  church  as  a whole. 

Pergamum  in  Mysia  (the  northernmost  of  these  seven  cities, 
formerly  the  residence  of  the  kings  of  Asia  of  the  Attalian 
dynasty,  and  renowned  for  its  large  library  of  200,000  volumes 
and  the  manufacture  of  parchment;  hence  the  name  charta, 
P ei'g amena  • — now  Bergamo,  a village  inhabited  by  Turks, 
Greeks,  and  Armenians)  was  the  seat  of  a church,  which  under 
trying  circumstances  had  shown  great  fidelity,  but  tolerated  in 
her  bosom  those  who  held  dangerous  Gnostic  errors.  For  this 
want  of  rigid  discipline  she  also  is  called  on  to  repent. 

The  church  of  Thyatira  (a  flourishing  manufacturing  and 
commercial  city  in  Lydia,  on  the  site  of  which  now  stands  a 
considerable  Turkish  town  called  Ak-Hissar,  or  “the  White 
Castle,”  with  nine  mosques  and  one  Greek  church)  was  very 
favorably  distinguished  for  self-denying,  active  love  and  pa- 
tience, but  was  likewise  too  indulgent  towards  errors  which  cor- 
rupted Christianity  with  heathen  principles  and  practices. 

The  last  two  churches,  especially  that  of  Thyatira,  form  thus 
the  exact  counterpart  to  that  of  Ephesus,  and  are  the  represent- 
atives of  a zealous  practical  piety  in  union  with  theoretical  lati- 
tudinarianism.  As  doctrine  always  has  more  or  less  influence 
on  practice,  this  also  is  a dangerous  state.  That  church  alone 


454 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


is  truly  sound  and  flourishing  in  which  purity  of  doctrine  and 
purity  of  life,  theoretical  orthodoxy  and  practical  piety  are  har- 
moniously united  and  promote  one  another. 

With  good  reason  have  theologians  in  all  ages  regarded  these 
seven  churches  of  Asia  Minor  as  a miniature  of  the  whole 
Christian  church.  “ There  is  no  condition,  good,  bad,  or  mixed, 
of  which  these  epistles  do  not  present  a sample,  and  for  which 
they  do  not  give  suitable  and  wholesome  direction.”  Here,  as 
everywhere,  the  word  of  God  and  the  history  of  the  apostolic 
church  evince  their  applicability  to  all  times  and  circumstances, 
and  their  inexhaustible  fulness  of  instruction,  warning,  and 
encouragement  for  all  states  and  stages  of  religious  life. 


§ 51.  THE  SYNAGOGUE, 


455 


CHAPTER  IX. 

WORSHIP  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE. 

Literature. 

Th.  Harnack  : Lev  christliche  Gemeindegottesdienst  im  apost.  und  altka- 
thol.  Zeitalter.  Erlangen,  1854.  The  same:  Prdkt.  Theol. , I.  1877. 
F.  Probst  (R.  G.)  : Liturgie  der  drei  ersten  Jahrhunderte.  Tiib.,  1870. 
W.  L.  Volz:  Anfange  des  christl.  Gottesdienstes,  in  “Stud,  und  Krit.” 
1872. 

H.  Jacoby  : Die  constitutiven  Factor en  des  apost . Gottesdienstes , in  “ Jahrb. 
fur  deutsche  Theol.”  for  1873. 

C.  Weizsacker  : Die  Versammlungen  der  altesten  Christengemeinden,  1876 ; 

and  Das  Apost.  Zeitalter , 1886,  pp.  566  sqq. 

Th.  Zahn  : Gesch.  des  Sonntags  in  der  alten  Kir  eke.  Hann.,  1878. 
Schaff  : Hist,  of  tke  Apost.  Ch. , pp.  545-586. 

Comp,  the  Lit.  on  Ch.  X.,  and  on  the  Didache , vol.  H.  184. 


§ 51.  The  Synagogue. 

Campeg.  Yitbinga  (d.  at  Franeker,  1722)  : De  Synagoga  Vetere  libri  tres. 
Franeker,  1696.  2 vols.  (also  Weissenfels,  1726).  A standard  work, 
full  of  biblical  and  rabbinical  learning.  A condensed  translation  by 
J.  L.  Bernard  : The  Synagogue  and  the  Church.  London,  1842. 

C.  Bornitius  : De  Synagogis  veterum  Hebroeorum.  Vitemb.,  1650.  And 
inUGOLiNUs:  Thesaurus  Antiquitatum  sacrarum  (Venet.,  1744-69), 
vol.  XXI.  495-539. 

Ant.  Th.  Hartmann  : Die  enge  Verbindung  des  A.  Testaments  mit  dem 
Neuen.  Hamburg,  1831  (pp.  225-376). 

Zunz  (a  Jewish  Rabbi)  : Die  gottesdienstlichen  Vortrdge  dei'  Juden.  Ber- 
lin, 1832. 

The  Histories  of  the  Jews , by  Jost,  Herzfebd,  and  Midman. 

The  Histories  of  N.  T.  Times , by  Hausrath  (I.  73  sqq.  2d  ed.)  and 
Sohurer  (463-475,  and  the  literature  there  given). 

Art.  “Synag.,”  by  Ginsburg  in  “ Kitto  Pdumptbe  in  “Smith”  (with 
additions  by  Hackett,  IY.  3133,  Am.  ed.)  ; Leyrer  in  “Herzog” 
(XY.  299,  first  cd.) ; Kneukeb  in  “ Schenkel  ” (V.  443). 


456 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


As  the  Christian  Church  rests  historically  on  the  Jewish 
Church,  so  Christian  worship  and  the  congregational  organiza- 
tion rest  on  that  of  the  synagogue,  and  cannot  be  well  under- 
stood without  it. 

The  synagogue  was  and  is  still  an  institution  of  immense  con- 
servative power.  It  was  the  local  centre  of  the  religious  and 
social  life  of  the  Jews,  as  the  temple  of  Jerusalem  was  the  cen- 
tre of  their  national  life.  It  was  a school  as  well  as  a church, 
and  the  nursery  and  guardian  of  all  that  is  peculiar  in  this 
peculiar  people.  It  dates  probably  from  the  age  of  the  captivity 
and  of  Ezra.1  It  was  fully  organized  at  the  time  of  Christ  and 
the  apostles,  and  used  by  them  as  a basis  of  their  public  in- 
struction.3 It  survived  the  temple,  and  continues  to  this  day 
unaltered  in  its  essential  features,  the  chief  nursery  and  protec- 
tion of  the  Jewish  nationality  and  religion.3 

The  term  “ synagogue  ” (like  our  word  church)  signifies  first 
the  congregation,  then  also  the  building  where  the  congregation 
meet  for  public  worship.4  Every  town,  however  small,  had  a 
synagogue,  or  at  least  a place  of  prayer  in  a private  house  or  in 
the  open  air  (usually  near  a river  or  the  sea-shore,  on  account  of 
the  ceremonial  washings).  Ten  men  were  sufficient  to  consti- 
tute a religious  assembly.  “ Moses  from  generations  of  old  hath 

1 The  Jewish  tradition  traces  it  back  to  the  schools  of  the  prophets,  and 
even  to  patriarchal  times,  by  far-fetched  interpretations  of  Gen.  25  : 27  ; 
Judg.  5:9;  Isa.  1:13,  etc. 

2 Comp.  § 17,  p.  152. 

3 11  Dei  dem  Untergang  aller  Institutionen ,”  says  Dr.  Zunz  (l.  c.  p.  1),  “ blieb 
die  Synagoge  als  einziger  Trdger  Hirer  Nationalitat ; dorthin  jloh  ihr  Glciuben 
undvon  dorther  empfingen  sie  Belehrung  fur  i/iren  irdischen  Wandel , Kraft  zur 
Ausdauer  in  unerhorten  Leiden  und  Hoffnung  auf  eine  kunftige  Moi'genrothe 
der  Freiheit.  Der  offentliche  Gottesdienst  der  Synagoge  ward  das  Panier 
judischer  Nationalitat , die  Aegide  des  judischen  Glaubens.” 

4 o-vvayoyf],  often  in  the  Septuagint  (130  times  as  translation  of  fHS,  25  times 

for  bnj?)  ; in  the  Greek  Test.  (Matt.  4 : 23 ; Mark  1 : 21  ; Luke  4 : 15  ; 12  : 11 ; 
Acts  9:2;  13  : 43,  etc. ; of  a Christian  congregation,  James  2:2);  also  in 
Philo  and  Josephus  ; sometimes  cuvaydyiov  (Philo),  o-aPfiareiov  (Josephus), 
TrpoaevKTfiptot/  (Philo),  Trpoaevxh,  house  of  prayer,  oratory  (Acts  16  : 13  and 
Josephus)  ; also  iKK\rj<rla.  Hebrew  designations : bnj?,  "WSlXj 

n:n  ma.  rfetn  na.  nos  an  riTa. 

..,  T * t "J  VV«- 


§ 51.  THE  SYNAGOGUE. 


457 


in  every  city  them  that  preacli  him,  being  read  in  the  synagogues 
every  Sabbath.”  1 To  erect  a synagogue  was  considered  a work 
of  piety  and  public  usefulness.8  In  large  cities,  as  Alexandria 
and  Koine,  there  were  many  ; in  Jerusalem,  about  four  hundred 
for  the  various  sects  and  the  Hellenists  from  different  countries.3 

1.  The  building  was  a plain,  rectangular  hall  of  no  peculiar 
style  of  architecture,  and  in  its  inner  arrangement  somewhat 
resembling  the  Tabernacle  and  the  Temple.  It  had  benches,  the 
higher  ones  (“  the  uppermost  seats  ”)  for  the  elders  and  richer 
members,4  a reading-desk  or  pulpit,  and  a wooden  ark  or  closet 
for  the  sacred  rolls  (called  “ Coplieret  ” or  Mercy  Seat,  also 
“Aaron  ”).  The  last  corresponded  to  the  Holy  of  Holies  in  the 
Tabernacle  and  the  Temple.  A sacred  light  was  kept  burning 
as  a symbol  of  the  divine  law,  in  imitation  of  the  light  in  the 
Temple,  but  there  is  no  mention  made  of  it  in  the  Talmud. 
Other  lamps  were  brought  in  by  devout  worshippers  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Sabbath  (Friday  evening).  Alms-boxes  were 
provided  near  the  door,  as  in  the  Temple,  one  for  the  poor  in 
Jerusalem,  another  for  local  charities.  Paul  imitated  the  ex- 
ample by  collecting  alms  for  the  poor  Christians  in  Jerusalem. 

There  was  no  artistic  (except  vegetable)  ornamentation ; for 
the  second  commandment  strictly  forbids  all  images  of  the 
Deity  as  idolatrous.  In  this,  as  in  many  other  respects,  the 
Mohammedan  mosque,  with  its  severe  iconoclastic  simplicity,  is  a 
second  edition  of  the  synagogue.  The  building  was  erected  on 
the  most  elevated  spot  of  the  neighborhood,  and  no  house  was 
allowed  to  overtop  it.  In  the  absence  of  a commanding  site,  a 
tall  pole  from  the  roof  rendered  it  conspicuous.5 

1 Acts  15  : 21.  5 Luke  7 : 5. 

3 Acts  6 : 9.  The  number  of  synagogues  in  Jerusalem  is  variously  stated 
from  394  to  480. 

4 Matt.  23  : 6 ; comp.  James  2 : 2,  3.  Tn  the  synagogue  of  Alexandria  there 
were  seventy-one  golden  chairs,  according  to  the  number  of  members  of  the 
Sanhedrin.  The  irpcoTOKc&eSplai  were  near  the  ark,  the  place  of  honor. 

6 Ruins  of  eleven  or  more  ancient  synagogues  still  exist  in  Palestine  (all  in 
Galilee)  at  Tell- Hum  (Capernaum),  Kerazeh  (Choraziu),  Meiron,  Irbid  (Arbela), 
Kasyun,  Umm  el-*Amud,  Nebratein,  two  at  Kefr-Birim,  two  at  el-Jish  (Gis- 
cala).  See  Palest.  Explor.  Quart.  Statement  for  July,  1878. 


458 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


2.  Organization. — Every  synagogue  had  a president,1 *  a num- 
ber of  elders  ( Zekenim ) equal  in  rank,3  a reader  and  interpreter,3 
one  or  more  envoys  or  clerks,  called  “ messengers  ” (, Sheliach ),4 
and  a sexton  or  beadle  ( Chazzan ) for  the  humbler  mechanical 
services.5 6  There  were  also  deacons  ( Gahae  zedaka ) for  the 
collection  of  alms  in  money  and  produce.  Ten  or  more  wealthy 
men  at  leisure,  called  Batlanim , represented  the  congregation  at 
every  service.  Each  synagogue  formed  an  independent  republic, 
but  kept  up  a regular  correspondence  with  other  synagogues. 
It  was  also  a civil  and  religious  court,  and  had  power  to  excom- 
municate and  to  scourge  offenders." 

3.  Worship. — It  was  simple,  but  rather  long,  and  embraced 
three  elements,  devotional,  didactic,  and  ritualistic.  It  included 
prayer,  song,  reading,  and  exposition  of  the  Scripture,  the  rite 
of  circumcision,  and  ceremonial  washings.  The  bloody  sacri- 
fices were  confined  to  the  temple  and  ceased  with  its  destruc- 
tion ; they  were  fulfilled  in  the  eternal  sacrifice  on  the  cross. 
The  prayers  and  songs  were  chiefly  taken  from  the  Psalter, 
which  may  be  called  the  first  liturgy  and  hymn  book. 

The  opening  prayer  was  called  the  Shema  or  Keriath  Shema, 
and  consisted  of  two  introductory  benedictions,  the  reading  of 
the  Ten  Commandments  (afterward  abandoned)  and  several 
sections  of  the  Pentateuch,  namely,  Deut.  6 : Ir-9 ; 11 : 13-21 ; 
Num.  15  : 37-41.  Then  followed  the  eighteen  prayers  and 

1 The  apxi(rvv6.yuryos  (tfODSn  Luke  8:49;  13  : 14  j Mark  5 : 36,  33; 

Acts  18  : 8,  17 ; or  &pxw  ttjs  away vyrjs,  Luke  8 : 41  ; or  &pxw,  Matt.  9:18. 
He  was  simply  •primus  inter  pares ; hence,  several  ipxKrwdyar/oi  appear  in 
one  and  the  same  synagogue,  Luke  13  : 14  ; Mark  5 : 22  ; Acts  13  : 15  ; 18  : 17. 
In  smaller  towns  there  was  but  one. 

a irpetrjSwTepot 

8 After  the  Babylonian  captivity  an  interpreter  ( Methurgeman ) was  usually 
employed  to  translate  the  Hebrew  lesson  into  the  Chaldee  or  Greek,  or  other 
vernacular  languages. 

4 air6<TTo\oi,  &yye\ot  (^22  rn£  zp).  Not  to  be  confounded  with  the  angels 
in  the  Apocalypse. 

8 uirr)p€Tr)s  (ljn),  Luke  4 : 20. 

6 Matt.  10:17;  23:34;  Luke  12:11;  21:12;  John  9:34;  10:2;  Acts 
22  : 19  ; 26  : 11.  The  Chazzan  had  to  administer  the  corporal  punishment. 


§ 51.  THE  SYNAGOGUE. 


459 


benedictions  ( Berachoth ).  This  is  one  of  them : “ Bestow  peace, 
happiness,  blessing,  grace,  mercy,  and  compassion  upon  us  and 
upon  the  whole  of  Israel,  thy  people.  Our  Father,  bless  us  all 
unitedly  with  the  light  of  thy  countenance,  for  in  the  light  of 
thy  countenance  didst  thou  give  to  us,  O Lord  our  God,  the  law 
of  life,  lovingkindness,  justice,  blessing,  compassion,  life,  and 
peace.  May  it  please  thee  to  bless  thy  people  Israel  at  all 
times,  and  in  every  moment,  with  peace.  Blessed  art  thou, 
O Lord,  who  blessest  thy  people  Israel  with  peace.”  These 
benedictions  are  traced  in  the  Mishna  to  the  one  hundred 
and  twenty  elders  of  the  Great  Synagogue.  They  were  no 
doubt  of  gradual  growth,  some  dating  from  the  Maccabean 
struggles,  some  from  the  Homan  ascendancy.  The  prayers 
were  offered  by  a reader,  and  the  congregation  responded 
“ Amen.”  This  custom  passed  into  the  Christian  church.1 2 3 

The  didactic  and  homiletical  part  of  worship  was  based  on  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures.  A lesson  from  the  Law  (called  jparasha)* 
and  one  from  the  Prophets  ( haphthara ) were  read  in  the  origi- 
nal,* and  followed  by  a paraphrase  or  commentary  and  homily 
(midrash)  in  the  vernacular  Aramaic  or  Greek.  A benediction 
and  the  “ Amen  ” of  the  people  closed  the  service. 

As  there  was  no  proper  priesthood  outside  of  Jerusalem,  any 
Jew  of  age  might  get  up  to  read  the  lessons,  offer  prayer,  and 
address  the  congregation.  Jesus  and  the  apostles  availed  them- 
selves of  this  democratic  privilege  to  preach  the  gospel,  as  the 
fulfilment  of  the  law  and  the  prophets.4  The  strong  didactic 
element  which  distinguished  this  service  from  all  heathen  forms 
of  worship,  had  the  effect  of  familiarizing  the  Jews  of  all  grades, 


1 1 Cor.  14  : 16.  The  responsive  element  is  the  popular  feature  in  a liturgy  > 
and  has  been  wisely  preserved  in  the  Anglican  Church. 

2 The  Thorah  was  divided  into  154  sections,  and  read  through  in  three 
years,  afterwards  in  54  sections  for  one  year. 

3 The  avayvoxus  rod  v6fxov  teal  tu>v  ir po<£ipw,  Acts  13  : 15. 

4 Luke  4 : 17-20 ; 13:54;  John  18:20;  Acts  13:5,  15,44;  14:1;  17:&-4, 
10,  17  ; 18  : 4,  26 ; 19  : 8.  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  requested  by  the  rulers  of 
the  synagogue  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia  to  speak  after  the  reading  of  the  law  and 
the  prophets  (Acts  13  : 15). 


460 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


even  down  to  the  servant-girls,  with  their  religion,  and  raising 
them  far  above  the  heathen.  At  the  same  time  it  attracted 
proselytes  who  longed  for  a purer  and  more  spiritual  worship. 

The  days  of  public  service  were  the  Sabbath,  Monday,  and 
Thursday ; the  hours  of  prayer  the  third  (9  a.m.),  the  sixth 
(noon),  and  the  ninth  (3  p.m.).1 

The  sexes  were  divided  by  a low  wall  or  screen,  the  men  on 
the  one  side,  the  women  on  the  other,  as  they  are  still  in  the 
East  (and  in  some  parts  of  Europe).  The  people  stood  during 
prayer  with  their  faces  turned  to  Jerusalem. 

§ 52.  Christian  Worship. 

Christian  worship,  or  cultus,  is  the  public  adoration  of  God 
in  the  name  of  Christ ; the  celebration  of  the  communion  of 
believers  as  a congregation  with  their  heavenly  Head,  for  the 
glory  of  the  Lord,  and  for  the  promotion  and  enjoyment  of 
spiritual  life.  While  it  aims  primarily  at  the  devotion  and 
edification  of  the  church  itself,  it  has  at  the  same  time  a mis- 
sionary character,  and  attracts  the  outside  world.  This  was  the 
case  on  the  Hay  of  Pentecost  when  Christian  worship  in  its 
distinctive  character  first  appeared. 

As  our  Lord  himself  in  his  youth  and  manhood  worshipped 
in  the  synagogue  and  the  temple,  so  did  his  early  disciples  as 
long  as  they  were  tolerated.  Even  Paul  preached  Christ  in  the 
synagogues  of  Damascus,  Cyprus,  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  Amphi- 
polis,  Beroea,  Athens,  Corinth,  Ephesus.  He  “ reasoned  with 
the  Jews  every  sabbath  in  the  synagogue,”  which  furnished  him 
a pulpit  and  an  audience. 

The  Jewish  Christians,  at  least  in  Palestine,  conformed  as 
closely  as  possible  to  the  venerable  forms  of  the  cultus  of  their 
fathers,  which  in  truth  were  divinely  ordained,  and  were  an  ex- 
pressive type  of  the  Christian  worship.  So  far  as  we  know, 
they  scrupulously  observed  the  Sabbath,  the  annual  Jewish 

1 Comp.  Ps.  55  : 18 ; Dan.  7:11;  Acts  2:15;  3:1;  10:30.  These  hours  of 
devotion  are  respectively  called  Shacharith , Minchah , and  ’ ArabitJi . 


§ 53.  TIIE  SEVERAL  PARTS  OF  WORSHIP. 


461 


feasts,  the  hours  of  daily  prayer,  and  the  whole  Mosaic  ritual, 
and  celebrated,  in  addition  to  these,  the  Christian  Sunday,  the 
death  and  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord,  and  the  holy  Supper. 
But  this  union  was  gradually  weakened  by  the  stubborn  opposi- 
tion of  the  Jews,  and  was  at  last  entirely  broken  by  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  temple,  except  among  the  Ebionites  and  Nazarenes. 

In  the  Gentile-Christian  congregations  founded  by  Paul,  the 
worship  took  from  the  beginning  a more  independent  form. 
The  essential  elements  of  the  Old  Testament  service  were  trans- 
ferred, indeed,  but  divested  of  their  national  legal  character,  and 
transformed  by  the  spirit  of  the  gospel.  Thus  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath passed  into  the  Christian  Sunday ; the  typical  Passover 
and  Pentecost  became  feasts  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
Christ,  and  of  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit ; the  bloody 
sacrifices  gave  place  to  the  thankful  remembrance  and  appro- 
priation of  the  one,  all-sufficient,  and  eternal  sacrifice  of  Christ 
on  the  cross,  and  to  the  personal  offering  of  prayer,  intercession, 
and  entire  self-consecration  to  the  service  of  the  Pedeemer ; on 
the  ruins  of  the  temple  made  without  hands  arose  the  never- 
ceasing  worship  of  the  omnipresent  God  in  spirit  and  in  truth.1 

So  early  as  the  close  of  the  apostolic  period  this  more  free 
and  spiritual  cultus  of  Christianity  had  no  doubt  become  well 
nigh  universal;  yet  many  Jewish  elements,  especially  in  the 
Eastern  church,  remain  to  this  day. 

§ 53.  The  Several  Parts  of  Worship . 

The  several  parts  of  public  worship  in  the  time  of  the  apos- 
tles were  as  follows : 

1.  The  preaching  of  the  gospel.  This  appears  in  the  first 
period  mostly  in  the  form  of  a missionary  address  to  the  uncon- 
verted ; that  is,  a simple,  living  presentation  of  the  main  facts  of 
the  life  of  Jesus,  with  practical  exhortation  to  repentance  and 
conversion.  Christ  crucified  and  risen  was  the  luminous  centre, 
whence  a sanctifying  light  was  shed  on  all  the  relations  of  life. 

Comp.  John  2 : 19  ; 4 : 23,  24. 


462 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Gushing  forth  from  a full  heart,  this  preaching  went  to  the 
heart ; and  springing  from  an  inward  life,  it  kindled  life — a new, 
divine  life — in  the  susceptible  hearers.  It  was  revival  preach- 
ing in  the  purest  sense.  Of  this  primitive  Christian  testimony 
several  examples  from  Peter  and  Paul  are  preserved  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

The  Epistles  also  may  be  regarded  in  the  wider  sense  as  ser- 
mons, addressed,  however,  to  believers,  and  designed  to  nourisli 
the  Christian  life  already  planted. 

2.  The  reading  of  portions  of  the  Old  Testament,1 *  with  prac- 
tical exposition  and  application ; transferred  from  the  Jewish 
synagogue  into  the  Christian  church.3  To  these  were  added  in 
due  time  lessons  from  the  New  Testament ; that  is,  from  the 
canonical  Gospels  and  the  apostolic  Epistles,  most  of  which 
were  addressed  to  whole  congregations  and  originally  intended 
for  public  use.3  After  the  death  of  the  apostles  their  writings 
became  doubly  important  to  the  church,  as  a substitute  for  their 
oral  instruction  and  exhortation,  and  were  much  more  used  in 
worship  than  the  Old  Testament. 

3.  Prayer,  in  its  various  forms  of  petition,  intercession,  and 
thanksgiving.  This  descended  likewise  from  Judaism,  and  in 
fact  belongs  essentially  even  to  all  heathen  religions  ; but  now 
it  began  to  be  offered  in  childlike  confidence  to  a reconciled 
Father  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  and  for  all  classes  and  conditions, 
even  for  enemies  and  persecutors.  The  first  Christians  accom- 
panied every  important  act  of  their  public  and  private  life  with 
this  holy  rite,  and  Paul  exhorts  his  readers  to  “ pray  without 
ceasing.”  On  solemn  occasions  they  joined  fasting  with  prayer, 
as  a help  to  devotion,  though  it  is  nowhere  directly  enjoined  in 
the  New  Testament.4  They  prayed  freely  from  the  heart,  as 
they  were  moved  by  the  Spirit,  according  to  special  needs  and 
circumstances.  We  have  an  example  in  the  fourth  chapter  of 

1 The  Parashioth  and  Haphtaroth,  as  they  were  called. 

* Comp.  Acts  13  : 15  ; 15  : 21. 

3 1 Thess.  5:27;  Col.  4 : 16. 

4 Comp.  Matt.  9 : 15 ; Acts  13  : 3 ; 14  : 23;  1 Cor.  7 : 5. 


§ 53.  THE  SEVERAL  PARTS  OF  WORSHIP. 


463 


Acts.  There  is  no  trace  of  a uniform  and  exclusive  lituigy ; it 
would  be  inconsistent  with  the*  vitality  and  liberty  of  the  apos- 
tolic churches.  At  the  same  time  the  frequent  use  of  psalms 
and  short  forms  of  devotion,  as  the  Lord’s  Prayer,  may  be  in- 
ferred with  certainty  from  the  Jewish  custom,  from  the  Lord’s 
direction  respecting  his  model  praj^er,1  from  the  strong  sense  of 
fellowship  among  the  first  Christians,  and  finally  from  the  litur- 
gical spirit  of  the  ancient  church,  which  could  not  have  so  gen- 
erally prevailed  both  in  the  East  and  the  West  without  some 
apostolic  and  post-apostolic  precedent.  The  oldest  forms  are 
the  eucharistic  prayers  of  the  Didache , and  the  petition  for 
rulers  in  the  first  Epistle  of  Clement,  which  contrasts  most  beau- 
tifully with  the  cruel  hostility  of  Nero  and  Domitian.5* 

4.  The  song,  a form  o*  prayer,  in  the  festive  dress  of  poetry 
and  the  elevated  language  of  inspiration,  raising  the  congrega- 
tion to  the  highest  pitch  of  devotion,  and  giving  it  a part  in  the 
heavenly  harmonies  of  the  saints.  This  passed  immediately, 
with  the  psalms  of  the  Old  Testament,  those  inexhaustible  treas- 
ures of  spiritual  experience,  edification,  and  comfort,  from  the 
temple  and  the  synagogue  into  the  Christian  church.  The 
Lord  himself  inaugurated  psalmody  into  the  new  covenant  at 
the  institution  of  the  holy  Supper,3  and  Paul  expressly  enjoined 
the  singing  of  “ psalms  and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs,”  as  a 
means  of  social  edification.4  But  to  this  precious  inheritance 
from  the  past,  whose  full  value  was  now  for  the  first  time  under- 
stood in  the  light  of  the  New  Testament  revelation,  the  church, 
in  the  enthusiasm  of  her  first  love,  added  original,  specifically 
Christian  psalms,  hymns,  doxologies,  and  benedictions,  which 
afforded  the  richest  material  for  sacred  poetry  and  music  in  suc- 
ceeding centuries ; the  song  of  the  heavenly  hosts,  for  example, 
at  the  birth  of  the  Saviour ; 5 the  “ Nunc  dimittis  ” of  Simeon ; 8 
the  “Magnificat”  of  the  Virgin  Mary;3  the  “Benedictus”  of 

1 Matt.  6:9;  Luke  11  : 1,  2.  The  Didache,  ch.  8,  gives  the  Lord’s  Prayer 
from  Matthew,  with  a brief  doxology  (comp.  1 Cor.  29  : 11),  and  the  direction 
to  pray  it  three  times  a day.  See  Schaff  on  the  Did. , p.  188  sq. 

2 Didache , chs.  8-10;  Clement,  Ad  Car.,  chs.  59-61.  See  vol.  II.  226. 

3 Comp.  Matt.  26  : 30  ; Mark  14 ; 26.  4 Eph.  5 : 19  ; Col.  3 : 16. 

6 The  “ Gloria,”  Luke  2 ; 14.  • Luke  2 ; 29,  1 Luke  1 : 46  sqq. 


464 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Zacharias ; 1 the  thanksgiving  of  Peter  after  his  miraculous  de- 
liverance ; 2 the  speaking  with  tongues  in  the  apostolic  churches, 
which,  whether  song  or  prayer,  was  always  in  the  elevated  lan- 
guage of  enthusiasm  ; the  fragments  of  hymns  scattered  through 
the  Epistles ; 3 and  the  lyrical  and  liturgical  passages,  the  dox- 
ologies  and  antiphonies  of  the  Apocalypse.4 

5.  Confession  of  faith.  All  the  above-mentioned  acts  of 
worship  are  also  acts  of  faith.  The  first  express  confession  of 
faith  is  the  testimony  of  Peter,  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  the  living  God.  The  next  is  the  trinitarian  baptismal 
formula.  Out  of  this  gradually  grew  the  so-called  Apostles’ 
Creed,  which  is  also  trinitarian  in  structure,  but  gives  the  con- 
fession of  Christ  the  central  and  largest  place.  Though  not 

1 Luke  1 : G8  sqq.  * Acts  4 : 24-30.  Comp.  Ps.  2. 

3 Eph.  5 : 14  ; 1 Tim.  3 : 16;  2 Tim.  2 : 11-13;  1 Pet.  3 : 10-12.  The  quo- 
tation is  introduced  by  Stb  \eyei  and  iriarbs  6 \nyos.  The  rhythmical  arrange- 
ment and  adjustment  in  these  passages,  especially  the  first  two,  is  obvious, 
and  Westcott  and  Hort  have  marked  it  in  their  Greek  Testament  as  follows  : 

*'Eyeipe,  6 Ka&evScov, 

Kal  avdara  4k  twv  veKpwv, 

koI  ^7 Ti<pav<rei  coi  6 xPl<TT^<i‘ 

—Eph.  5 : 14. 

"Os  4<pavepudr]  4v  crapKt, 
ibiKcuudri  4v  irvcvfJLari, 

&<pQi]  ayye\ ois, 

4iajpvx^V  iv  edpeo’tp, 

4 ttkttcvOt}  4v  Kdcrfitp, 
avt\4}iJL<pQT\  4v  Stffy. 

—1  Tim.  3 : 16. 

The  last  passage  is  undoubtedly  a quotation.  The  received  reading,  beds,  is 
justly  rejected  by  critical  editors  and  exchanged  for  Us,  which  refers  to  God  or 
Christ.  Some  manuscripts  read  the  neuter  o,  which  would  refer  to  ixvar^piov. 
1 Pet.  3 : 10-12,  which  reads  like  a psalm,  is  likewise  metrically  arranged  by 
Westcott  and  Hort.  James  1:17,  though  probably  not  a quotation,  is  a com- 
plete hexameter  : 

-irdaa  b6(Tis  aya&b  Kal  ttciv  ScvpTjfia  re\ciop. 

Liddon  (Lectures  on  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  p.  328)  adds  to  the  hymnological 
fragments  the  passage  Tit.  3 : 4-7,  as  “ a hymn  on  the  way  of  salvation,” 
and  several  other  passages  which  seem  to  me  doubtful. 

4 Apoc.  1:5-8;  3:7,  14;  5:9,  12,  13 ; 11  : 15,  17,  19  ; 15  : 4 ; 19  : 6-8, 
and  other  passages.  They  lack  the  Hebrew  parallelism,  but  are  nevertheless 
poetical,  and  are  printed  in  uncial  type  by  Westcott  and  Hort. 


§ 54.  BAPTISM. 


465 


traceable  in  its  present  shape  above  the  fourth  century,  and 
found  in  the  second  and  third  in  different  longer  or  shorter 
forms,  it  is  in  substance  altogether  apostolic,  and  exhibits  an 
incomparable  summary  of  the  leading  facts  in  the  revelation  of 
the  triune  God  from  the  creation  of  the  world  to  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body ; and  that  in  a form  intelligible  to  all,  and 
admirably  suited  for  public  worship  and  catechetical  use.  We 
shall  return  to  it  more  fully  in  the  second  period. 

6.  Finally,  the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  or  sacred 
rites  instituted  by  Christ,  by  which,  under  appropriate  symbols 
and  visible  signs,  spiritual  gifts  and  invisible  grace  are  repre- 
sented, sealed,  and  applied  to  the  worthy  participators. 

The  two  sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper,  the 
antitypes  of  circumcision  and  the  passover  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, were  instituted  by  Christ  as  efficacious  signs,  pledges,  and 
means  of  the  grace  of  the  new  covenant.  They  are  related  to 
each  other  as  regeneration  and  sanctification,  or  as  the  beginning 
and  the  growth  of  the  Christian  life.  The  other  religious  rites 
mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  as  confirmation  and  ordina- 
tion, cannot  be  ranked  in  dignity  with  the  sacraments,  as  they 
are  not  commanded  by  Christ. 


§ 54.  Baptism. 

Literature. 

The  commentaries  on  Matt.  28  : 19 ; Mark  16:16;  John  3:5;  Acts  2 : 38 ; 

8 : 13,  16,  18,  37 ; Rom.  6:4;  Gal.  3 : 27 ; Tit.  3 : 5 ; 1 Pet.  3 : 21. 

G.  J.  Vossius  : Be  Baptismo  Bisputationes  XX.  Amsterdam,  1648. 

W.  Wall  (Episcopalian)  : The  History  of  Infant  Baptism  (a  very  learned 
work),  first  published  in  London,  1705,  2 vols.,  best  edition  by  H. 
Cotton,  Oxford,  1836,  4 vols.,  and  1862,  2 vols.,  together  with  Gale's 
(Baptist)  Reflections  and  Wall's  Defense.  A Latin  translation  by 
Schlossei * appeared,  vol.  I.,  at  Bremen,  1743,  and  vol.  II.  at  Ham- 
burg, 1753. 

F.  Brenner  (R.  Cath.)  : Geschichtliche  Darstellung  der  Verrichtung  der 
Taufe  von  Cliristus  his  avf  unsere  Zeiten.  Bamberg,  1818. 

Moses  Stuart  (Congregat.) : Mode  of  Christian  Baptism  Prescribed  in  the 
New  Testament.  Andover,  1833  (reprinted  1876). 


466 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Hofling  (Lutheran)  : Das  Sacrament  der  Taufe.  Erlangen,  1846  and 
1848,  2 vols. 

Samuel  Miller  (Presbyterian)  : Infant  Baptism  Scriptural  and  Reason- 
able ; and  Baptism  by  Sprinkling  or  Affusion , the  most  Suitable  and 
Edifying  Mode.  Philadelphia,  1840. 

Alex.  Carson  (Baptist)  : Baptism  in  its  Mode  and  Subjects.  London, 
1844  ; 5th  Amer.  ed.,  Philadelphia,  1850. 

Alex.  Campbell  (founder  of  the  Church  of  the  Disciples,  who  teach  that 
baptism  by  immersion  is  regeneration) : Christian  Baptism , with  its 
Antecedents  and  Consequents.  Bethany,  1848,  and  Cincinnati,  1876. 
T.  J.  Conant  (Baptist)  : The  Meaning  and  Use  of  Baptism  Philologically 
and  Historically  Investigated  for  the  American  (Baptist)  Bible  Union . 
New  York,  1861. 

James  W.  Dale  (Presbyterian,  d.  1881) : Classic  Baptism.  An  inquiry 
into  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo.  Philadelphia,  1867.  Judaic 
Baptism , 1871.  Johannic  Baptism , 1872.  Christie  and  Patristic 
Baptism , 1874.  In  all,  4 vols.  Against  the  immersion  theory. 

B.  LfGHAM  (Baptist)  : A Handbook  on  Christian  Baptism,  in  2 parts.  Lon- 
don, 1868. 

D.  B.  Ford  (Baptist) : Studies  on  Baptism.  New  York,  1879.  (Against 
Dale.) 

G.  D.  Armstrong  (Presbyterian  minister  at  Norfolk,  Ya.)  : The  Sacra- 
ments of  the  New  Testament , as  Instituted  by  Christ.  New  York,  1880. 
(Popular.) 

Dean  Stanley  : Christian  Institutions.  London  and  New  York,  1881. 
Chap.  I. 

On  the  (post-apostolic)  archaeology  of  baptism  see  the  archaeological 
works  of  Martene  (De  Antiquis  Eccles.  Ritibus ),  Goar  ( Euchologion 
Grcecorum)y  Bingham,  Augusti,  Binterim,  Siegel,  Martigny,  and 
Smith  and  Cheetham  (Diet,  of  Christ.  Ant .,  I.,  155  sqq.).' 

On  the  baptismal  pictures  in  the  catacombs  see  the  works  of  De  Rossi, 
Garrucci,  and  Schaff  on  the  Didache , pp.  36  sqq. 

1.  The  idea  of  Baptism.  It  was  solemnly  instituted  by  Christ, 
shortly  before  his  ascension,  to  be  performed  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  took  the  place 
of  circumcision  as  a sign  and  seal  of  church  membership.  It  is 
the  outward  mark  of  Christian  discipleship,  the  rite  of  initiation 
into  the  covenant  of  grace.  It  is  the  sacrament  of  repentance 
(conversion),  of  remission  of  sins,  and  of  regeneration  by  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit.1  In  the  nature  of  the  case  it  is  to 

1 Mark  1 : 4 (/3<brr«r/ia  neravoias  els  iv  aixapTioov,  said  of  John’s  baptism), 
ver.  8,  where  John  distinguishes  his  baptism,  as  a baptism  by  water  (£/5ar<), 


§ 54.  BAPTISM. 


467 


be  received  but  once.  It  incorporates  the  penitent  sinner  in 
the  visible  church,  and  entitles  him  to  all  the  privileges,  and 
binds  him  to  all  the  duties  of  this  communion.  Where  the  con- 
dition of  repentance  and  faith  is  wanting,  the  blessing  (as  in 
the  case  of  the  holy  Supper,  and  the  preaching  of  the  Word)  is 
turned  into  a curse,  and  what  God  designs  as  a savor  of  life  unto 
life  becomes,  by  the  unfaithfulness  of  man,  a savor  of  death  unto 
death. 

The  necessity  of  baptism  for  salvation  has  been  inferred  from 
John  3 : 5 and  Mark  16  : 16 ; but  while  we  are  bound  to  God’s 
ordinances,  God  himself  is  free  and  can  save  whomsoever  and 
by  whatsoever  means  he  pleases.  The  church  has  always  held 
the  principle  that  the  mere  want  of  the  sacrament  does  not  con- 
demn, but  only  the  contempt.  Otherwise  all  unbaptized  infants 
that  die  in  infancy  would  be  lost.  This  horrible  doctrine  was 
indeed  inferred  by  St.  Augustin  and  the  Roman  church,  from 
the  supposed  absolute  necessity  of  baptism,  but  is  in  direct  con- 
flict with  the  spirit  of  the  gospel  and  Christ’s  treatment  of  chil- 
dren, to  whom  belongs  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

The  first  administration  of  this  sacrament  in  its  full  Christian 
sense  took  place  on  the  birthday  of  the  church,  after  the  first 
independent  preaching  of  the  apostles.  The  baptism  of  John 
was  more  of  a negative  sort,  and  only  preparatory  to  the  bap- 
tism with  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  theory,  Christian  baptism  is  pre- 

from  the  baptism  of  Christ,  as  a baptism  by  the  Holy  Spirit  ( irvev/ian  ayla)  • 
Matt.  3:11;  Luke  3 : 16  ; John  1 : 33  (d  fUairTifav  ev  irvevnaTi  ay'up)  ; Acts 
2 : 38  (the  first  instance  of  Christian  baptism,  when  Peter  called  on  his  hearers  : 
M e r av  otj  <r  ar  e,  Kal  pairTia^qra)  eKaaro s v/xuv  ev  rip  ovdfxari  ’lr/crod  Xp.  els 
&<pe  <r  tv  r wv  afiapr  iwv  v/j.u>v,  Kal  X^/x^ea^e  r^v  Supectv  rov  ay  lov  ir  vevfxaros)  ; 
8 : 13  ; 11  : 16;  18:8  (eirlcreuov  Kal  ej3airrlCovro)  ; Rom.  6 : 4 (j8a7r ri(rp.a  els  rbv 
bdvarov) ; Gal.  3 : 27  ( els  Xpiarbv  efiairT'iafrrjTe).  The  fieravoia  was  the  connecting 
link  between  the  baptism  of  John  and  that  of  Christ.  The  English  rendering, 
“ repentance  ” (retained  in  the  Revision  of  1881),  is  inaccurate  (after  the  Latin 
j)cenitentia).  The  Greek  means  a change  of  mind,  vovs  (a  transmentation , as 
Coleridge  proposed  to  call  it),  an  entire  reformation  and  transformation 
of  the  inner  life  of  man,  with  a corresponding  outward  change.  It  was  the 
burden  of  the  preaching  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  Christ  himself,  who  began 
with  the  enlarged  exhortation  : M eTavotire  Kal  w«tt cwerc  4v  ei/ayye\iq >,  Mark 

1 : 15. 


468 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


ceded  by  conversion,  that  is  the  human  act  of  turning  from  sin 
to  God  in  repentance  and  faith,  and  followed  by  regeneration, 
that  is  the  divine  act  of  forgiveness  of  sin  and  inward  cleans- 
ing and  renewal.  Yet  in  practice  the  outward  sign  and  in- 
ward state  and  effect  do  not  always  coincide ; in  Simon  Magus 
we  have  an  example  of  the  baptism  of  water  without  that  of  the 
Spirit,  and  in  Cornelius  an  example  of  the  communication  of 
the  Spirit  before  the  application  of  the  water.  In  the  case  of 
infants,  conversion,  as  a conscious  act  of  the  will,  is  impossible 
and  unnecessary.  In  adults  the  solemn  ordinance  was  preceded 
by  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  or  a brief  instruction  in  its  main 
facts,  and  then  followed  by  more  thorough  inculcation  of  the 
apostolic  doctrine.  Later,  when  great  caution  became  necessary 
in  receiving  proselytes,  the  period  of  catechetical  instruction  and 
probation  was  considerably  lengthened. 

2.  The  usual  form  of  baptism  wras  immersion.  This  is  in- 
ferred from  the  original  meaning  of  the  Greek  ficnTTL^ecv  and 
fiaiTTLcr/io^ ; 1 from  the  analogy  of  John’s  baptism  in  the  Jor- 
dan ; from  the  apostles’  comparison  of  the  sacred  rite  with  the 
miraculous  passage  of  the  Red  Sea,  with  the  escape  of  the  ark 
from  the  flood,  with  a cleansing  and  refreshing  bath,  and  with 
burial  and  resurrection ; finally,  from  the  general  custom  of  the 
ancient  church,  which  prevails  in  the  East  to  this  day.2  But 

1 Comp,  the  German  taufen,  the  English  dip.  Grimm  defines  fiaivTifa  (the 
frequentative  of  jSaVrw) : ‘ immergo , submergo  ; ’ Liddell  and  Scott:  ‘ to  dip  in  or 
under  the  water.'  But  in  the  Sept,  and  the  New  Test,  it  has  also  a wider 
meaning.  Hence  Robinson  defines  it : *to  wash , to  lave , to  cleanse  by  wash- 
ing.' See  below. 

2 The  Oriental  and  the  orthodox  Russian  churches  require  even  a threefold 
immersion,  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  and  deny  the  validity  of  any  other. 
They  look  down  upon  the  Pope  of  Rome  as  an  unbaptized  heretic,  and 
would  not  recognize  the  single  immersion  of  the  Baptists.  The  Longer  Rus- 
sian Catechism  thus  defines  baptism:  UA  sacrament  in  which  a man  who 
believes,  having  his  body  thrice  plunged  in  water  in  the  name  of  God,  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  dies  to  the  carnal  life  of  sin,  and  is 
bom  again  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  a life  spiritual  and  holy.”  Marriott  (in 
Smith  and  Cheetham,  I.,  161)  says:  “ Triple  immersion,  that  is  thrice  dip- 
ping the  head  while  standing  in  the  water,  was  the  all  but  universal  mle 
of  the  church  in  eaxly  times,”  and  quotes  in  proof  Tertullian,  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem,  Chrysostom,  Jerome,  Leo  I.,  etc.  But  he  admits,  on  page  108  sq.f 


§ 54.  BAPTISM. 


469 


sprinkling,  also,  or  copious  pouring  rather,  was  practised  at  an 
early  day  with  sick  and  dying  persons,  and  in  all  such  cases 
where  total  or  partial  immersion  was  impracticable.  Some 
writers  suppose  that  this  was  the  case  even  in  the  first  bap- 
tism of  the  three  thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost ; for  Jeru- 
salem was  poorly  supplied  with  water  and  private  baths ; the 
Ivedron  is  a small  creek  and  dry  in  summer;  but  there  are 
a number  of  pools  and  cisterns  there.  Hellenistic  usage  allows 
to  the  relevant  expressions  sometimes  the  wider  sense  of  wash- 
ing, bathing,  sprinkling,  and  ceremonial  cleansing.1  Unquestion- 
ably, immersion  expresses  the  idea  of  baptism,  as  a purification 
and  renovation  of  the  whole  man,  more  completely  than  pour- 
ing or  sprinkling ; but  it  is  not  in  keeping  with  the  genius  of 
the  gospel  to  limit  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  the  quan- 
tity or  the  quality  of  the  water  or  the  mode  of  its  application. 
Water  is  absolutely  necessary  to  baptism,  as  an  appropriate  sym- 
bol of  the  purifying  and  regenerating  energy  of  the  Holy  Spi- 
rit ; but  whether  the  water  be  in  large  quantity  or  small,  cold  or 
warm,  fresh  or  salt,  from  river,  cistern,  or  spring,  is  relatively 
immaterial,  and  cannot  affect  the  validity  of  the  ordinance. 

3.  As  to  the  subjects  of  baptism:  the  apostolic  origin  of 
infant  baptism  is  denied  not  only  by  the  Baptists,  but  also  by 
many  psedobaptist  divines.  The  Baptists  assert  that  infant 

that  affusion  and  aspersion  were  exceptionally  also  used,  especially  in  clinical 
baptism,  the  validity  of  which  Cyprian  defended  ( Ep . 76  or  69  ad  Magnum). 
This  mode  is  already  mentioned  in  the  Didache  (ch.  7)  as  valid  ; see  my  book 
on  the  Did.,  third  ed.,  1889,  pp.  29  sqq. 

1 2 Kings  5 : 14  (Sept.)  ; Luke  11  : 38  ; Mark  7 : 4 (Pairrarnobs  iroTTjpiuv, 
etc.) ; Heb.  6 : 2 d3airTi<r/j.uv  tiiliaxf))  ; 9 : 10  ( $ta<p6pois  Pairrur/xois).  Observe 
also  the  remarkable  variation  of  reading  in  Matt.  7:4:  iav  fSanrlo-tovTat 
(except  they  bathe  themselves),  and  pavrlocwTcu  ( sprinkle  themselves).  Westcott 
and  Hort  adopt  the  latter  in  the  text,  the  former  in  the  margin.  The  Revis- 
ion of  1881  reverses  the  order.  The  ‘divers  baptisms’  in  Heb.  9 : 10  (in  the 
Revision  “washings ”)  probably  include  all  the  ceremonial  purifications  of  the 
Jews,  whether  by  bathing  (Lev.  11:25;  14:9;  Num.  19  : 7),  or  washing  (Num. 
19:7;  Mark  7 ; 8),  or  sprinkling  (Lev.  14  : 7 ; Num.  19  : 19).  In  the  figurative 
phrase  fiairrl^iv  tv  iryevpan  ayiy,  to  overwhelm,  plentifully  to  endow  with  the 
Holy  Spirit  (Matt.  3:11;  Luke  3 : 16  ; Mark  1:8;  John  1:33;  Acts  1:5; 
11 : 16),  the  idea  of  immersion  is  scarcely  admissible  since  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
poured  out.  See  my  Hist,  of  the  Apost.  Ch.,  p.  569. 


470 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


baptism  is  contrary  to  the  idea  of  the  sacrament  itself,  and^ 
accordingly,  an  unscriptural  corruption.  For  baptism,  say  they, 
necessarily  presupposes  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  on  the  part 
of  the  church,  and  repentance  and  faith  on  the  part  of  the  can- 
didate for  the  ordinance ; and  as  infants  can  neither  understand 
preaching,  nor  repent  and  believe,  they  are  not  proper  subjects 
for  baptism,  which  is  intended  only  for  adult  converts.  It  is 
true,  the  apostolic  church  was  a missionary  church,  and  had  first 
to  establish  a mother  community,  in  the  bosom  of  which  alone 
the  grace  of  baptism  can  be  improved  by  a Christian  education. 
So  even  under  the  old  covenant  circumcision  was  first  performed 
on  the  adult  Abraham ; and  so  all  Christian  missionaries  in 
heathen  lands  now  begin  with  preaching,  and  baptizing  adults. 
True,  the  New  Testament  contains  no  express  command  to  bap- 
tize infants  ; such  a command  would  not  agree  with  the  free 
spirit  of  the  gospel.  Nor  was  there  any  compulsory  or  general 
infant  baptism  before  the  union  of  church  and  state ; Constan- 
tine, the  first  Christian  emperor,  delayed  his  baptism  till  his 
death-bed  (as  many  now  delay  their  repentance) ; and  even  after 
Constantine  there  were  examples  of  eminent  teachers,  as  Greg- 
ory Nazianzen,  Augustin,  Chrysostom,  who  were  not  baptized 
before  their  conversion  in  early  manhood,  although  they  had 
Christian  mothers. 

But  still  less  does  the  New  Testament  forbid  infant  baptism ; 
as  it  might  be  expected  to  do  in  view  of  the  universal  custom 
of  the  Jews,  to  admit  their  children  by  circumcision  on  the 
eighth  day  after  birth  into  the  fellowship  of  the  old  covenant. 

On  the  contrary,  we  have  presumptive  and  positive  arguments 
for  the  apostolic  origin  and  character  of  infant  baptism,  first,  in 
the  fact  that  circumcision  as  truly  prefigured  baptism,  as  the 
passover  the  holy  Supper ; then  in  the  organic  relation  between 
Christian  parents  and  children ; in  the  nature  of  the  new  cove- 
nant, which  is  even  more  comprehensive  than  the  old ; in  the 
universal  virtue  of  Christ,  as  the  Redeemer  of  all  sexes,  classes, 
and  ages,  and  especially  in  the  import  of  his  own  infancy, 
which  has  redeemed  and  sanctified  the  infantile  age ; in  his  ex- 


§ 55.  the  lord’s  supper. 


471 


press  invitation  to  children,  whom  he  assures  of  a title  to  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  and  whom,  therefore,  he  certainly  would 
not  leave  without  the  sign  and  seal  of  such  membership ; in 
the  words  of  institution,  which  plainly  look  to  the  Christian- 
izing, not  merely  of  individuals,  but  of  whole  nations,  includ- 
ing, of  course,  the  children  ; in  the  express  declaration  of  Peter 
at  the  first  administration  of  the  ordinance,  that  this  promise  of 
forgiveness  of  sins  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  to  the  Jews  “ and 
to  their  children ; ” in  the  five  instances  in  the  Hew  Testament 
of  the  baptism  of  whole  families,  where  the  presence  of  children 
in  most  of  the  cases  is  far  more  probable  than  the  absence  of 
children  in  all ; and  finally,  in  the  universal  practice  of  the 
early  church,  against  which  the  isolated  protest  of  Tertullian 
proves  no  more,  than  llis  other  eccentricities  and  Montanistic 
peculiarities;  on  the  contrary,  his  violent  protest  implies  the 
prevailing  practice  of  infant  baptism.  He  advised  delay  of 
baptism  as  a measure  of  prudence,  lest  the  baptized  by  sinning 
again  might  forever  forfeit  the  benefit  of  this  ordinance ; but 
he  nowhere  denies  the  apostolic  origin  or  right  of  early  baptism. 

We  must  add,  however,  that  infant  baptism  is  unmeaning, 
and  its  practice  a profanation,  except  on  the  condition  of  Chris- 
tian parentage  or  guardianship,  and  under  the  guarantee  of  a 
Christian  education.  And  it  needs  to  be  completed  by  an  act  of 
personal  consecration,  in  which  the  child,  after  due  instruction 
in  the  gospel,  intelligently  and  freely  confesses  Christ,  devotes 
himself  to  his  service,  and  is  thereupon  solemnly  admitted  to 
the  full  communion  of  the  church  and  to  the  sacrament  of  the 
holy  Supper.  The  earliest  traces  of  confirmation  are  supposed 
to  be  found  in  the  apostolic  practice  of  laying  on  hands,  or  sym- 
bolically imparting  the  Holy  Spirit,  after  baptism.1 

§ 55.  The  lord's  Sujyper . 

The  commentaries  on  Matt.  26 : 26  sqq.,  and  the  parallel  passages  in 
Mark  and  Luke ; 1 Cor.  10  : 16,  17 ; 11 : 23  sqq. ; John  6 : 47-58;  63. 


1 Acts  8 : 15  ; 19  : 6 ; Heb.  6 : 2. 


472 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


D.  Waterland  (Episcopal.,  d.  1740) : A Review  of  the  Doctrine  of  the 

Eucharist , a new  edition,  1868  ( Works , vols.  IV.  and  V.). 

J.  Dollinger  : Die  Lehre  von  der  Eucharistie  in  den  drei  ersten  Jahrhun- 
derten.  Mainz,  1826.  (Rom.  Cath.) 

Ebrard  : Das  Dogma  vom  lieil.  Abendmahl  u.  seine  Geschichte.  Frankf. 

a.  M.,  1845,  2 vols.,  vol.  I.,  pp.  1-231.  (Reformed.) 

J.  W.  Nevin  : The  Mystical  Presence.  A Vindication  of  the  Reformed  or 
Calvinistic  Doctrine  of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  Philadelphia,  1846,  pp. 
199-256.  (Reformed.) 

Kahnis  : Die  Lehre  vom  heil.  Abendmahl.  Leipz.,  1851.  (Lutheran.) 
Robert  Wllberforce  : The  Doctrine  of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  London, 
1853.  (Anglican,  or  rather  Tractarian  or  Romanizing. ) 

L.  Imm.  Ruckert  : Das  Abendmahl.  Sein  Wesen  und  seine  Geschichte  in 
der  alten  Kirche.  Leipz.,  1856.  (Rationalistic.) 

E.  B.  Pusey  : The  Doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence , as  contained  in  the 

Fathers  j from  St.  John  to  the  Fourth  General  Council.  Oxford,  1855. 
(Anglo-Catholic. ) 

Philip  Freeman  : The  Principles  of  Divine  Service.  London,  1855-1862, 
in  two  parts.  (Anglican,  contains  much  historical  investigation  on 
the  subject  of  eucharistie  worship  in  the  ancient  Catholic  church.) 
Thos.  S.  L.  Vogan  : The  True  Doctrine  of  the  Eucharist.  London,  1871. 
(Anglican.) 

John  Harrison  : An  Answer  to  Dr.  Pusey* s Challenge  respecting  the  Doc- 
trine of  the  Real  Presence.  London,  1871,  2 vol3.  (Anglican,  Low 
Church.  Includes  the  doctrine  of  the  Scripture  and  the  first  eight 
centuries.) 

Dean  Stanley  : Christian  Institutions , London  and  New  York,  1881,  chs. 
IV.,  V.,  and  VI.  (He  adopts  the  Zwinglian  view,  and  says  of  the 
Marburg  Conference  of  1529  : “ Everything  which  could  be  said  on 
behalf  of  the  dogmatic,  coarse,  literal  interpretation  of  the  institu- 
tion was  urged  with  the  utmost  vigor  of  word  and  gesture  by  the 
stubborn  Saxon.  Everything  which  could  be  said  on  behalf  of  the 
rational,  refined,  spiritual  construction  was  urged  with  a union  of 
the  utmost  acuteness  and  gentleness  by  the  sober-minded  Swiss.”) 
L.  Gude  (Danish  Lutheran)  : Den  hellige  Nadvere.  Copenhagen,  1887, 
2 vols.  Exegetical  and  historical.  Reviewed  in  Lutliardt’s  “ Theol. 
Literaturblatt.,”  1889,  Nos.  14  sqq. 

The  sacrament  of  the  holy  Supper  was  instituted  by  Christ 
under  the  most  solemn  circumstances,  when  he  was  about  to 
offer  himself  a sacrifice  for  the  salvation  of  the  world.  It  is  the 
feast  of  the  thankful  remembrance  and  appropriation  of  his 
atoning  death,  and  of  the  living  union  of  believers  with  him,  and 
their  communion  among  themselves.  As  the  Passover  kept  in 


§ 55.  THE  lord’s  supper. 


473 


lively  remembrance  the  miraculous  deliverance  from  the  land  of 
bondage,  and  at  the  same  time  pointed  forward  to  the  Lamb  of 
God ; so  the  eucharist  represents,  seals,  and  applies  the  now 
accomplished  redemption  from  sin  and  death  until  the  end  of 
time.  Here  the  deepest  mystery  of  Christianity  is  embodied 
ever  anew,  and  the  story  of  the  cross  reproduced  before  us. 
Here  the  miraculous  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  is  spiritually 
perpetuated.  Here  Christ,  who  sits  at  the  right  hand  of  God, 
and  is  yet  truly  present  in  his  church  to  the  end  of  the  world, 
gives  his  own  body  and  blood,  sacrificed  for  us,  that  is,  his  very 
self,  his  life  and  the  virtue  of  his  atoning  death,  as  spiritual 
food,  as  the  true  bread  from  heaven,  to  all  who,  with  due  self- 
examination,  come  hungering  and  thirsting  to  the  heavenly  feast. 
The  communion  has  therefore  been  always  regarded  as  the  in- 
most sanctuary  of  Christian  worship. 

In  the  apostolic  period  the  eucharist  was  celebrated  daily  in 
connection  with  a simple  meal  of  brotherly  love  (agape),  in  which 
the  Christians,  in  communion  with  their  common  Redeemer, 
forgot  all  distinctions  of  rank,  wealth,  and  culture,  and  felt 
themselves  to  be  members  of  one  family  of  God.  But  this 
childlike  exhibition  of  brotherly  unity  became  more  and  more 
difficult  as  the  church  increased,  and  led  to  all  sorts  of  abuses, 
such  as  we  find  rebuked  in  the  Corinthians  by  Paul.  The  love- 
feasts,  therefore,  which  indeed  were  no  more  enjoined  by  law 
than  the  community  of  goods  at  Jerusalem,  were  gradually 
severed  from  the  eucharist,  and  in  the  course  of  the  second  and 
third  centuries  gradually  disappeared. 

The  apostle  requires  the  Christians1  to  prepare  themselves 
for  the  Lord’s  Supper  by  self-examination,  or  earnest  inquiry 
whether  they  have  repentance  and  faith,  without  which  they 
cannot  receive  the  blessing  from  the  sacrament,  but  rather  pro- 
voke judgment  from  God.  This  caution  gave  rise  to  the  appro- 
priate custom  of  holding  special  preparatory  exercises  for  the 
holy  communion. 

In  the  course  of  time  this  holy  feast  of  love  has  become  the 
1 1 Cor.  11  : 28. 


474 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


subject  of  bitter  controversy,  like  the  sacrament  of  baptism, 
and  even  the  Person  of  Christ  himself.  Three  conflicting  the- 
ories— transubstantiation,  consubstantiation,  and  spiritual  pres- 
ence of  Christ — have  been  deduced  from  as  many  interpretations 
of  the  simple  words  of  institution  (“  This  is  my  body,”  etc.), 
which  could  hardly  have  been  misunderstood  by  the  apostles  in 
the  personal  presence  of  their  Lord,  and  in  remembrance  of  his 
warning  against  carnal  misconception  of  his  discourse  on  the 
eating  of  his  flesh.1  The  eucharistic  controversies  in  the  middle 
ages  and  during  the  sixteenth  century  are  among  the  most  unedi- 
fying and  barren  in  the  history  of  Christianity.  And  yet  they  can- 
not have  been  in  vain.  The  different  theories  represent  elements 
of  truth  which  have  become  obscured  or  perverted  by  scholastic 
subtleties,  but  may  be  purified  and  combined.  The  Lord’s  Sup- 
per is : (1)  a commemorative  ordinance,  a memorial  of  Christ’s 
atoning  sacrifice  on  the  cross ; (2)  a feast  of  living  union  of  be- 
lievers with  the  Saviour,  whereby  they  truly,  that  is  spiritually 
and  by  faith,  receive  Christ,  with  all  his  benefits,  and  are  nour- 
ished with  his  life  unto  life  eternal ; (3)  a communion  of  be^ 
lievers  with  one  another  as  members  of  the  same  mystical  body 
of  Christ ; (4)  a eucharist  or  thankoffering  of  our  persons  and 
services  to  Christ,  who  died  for  us  that  we  might  live  for  him. 

Fortunately,  the  blessing  of  the  holy  communion  does  not  de- 
pend upon  the  scholastic  interpretation  and  understanding  of  the 
words  of  institution,  but  upon'  the  promise  of  the  Lord  and  upon 
childlike  faith  in  him.  And  therefore,  even  now,  Christians  of 
different  denominations  and  holding  different  opinions  can  unite 
around  the  table  of  their  common  Lord  and  Saviour,  and  feel 
one  with  him  and  in  him. 

1 John  6 : 63  : “ It  is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth  ; the  flesh  profiteth  nothing  ; 
the  words  that  I have  spoken  unto  you  are  spirit,  and  are  life.”  This  passage 
furnishes  the  key  for  the  understanding  of  the  previous  discourse,  whether  it 
refers  to  the  Lord’s  Supper,  directly  or  indirectly,  or  not  at  all.  That  the 
earl  in  the  words  of  institution  may  indicate  a figurative  or  symbolical  (as  well 
as  a real)  relation,  is  now  admitted  by  all  critical  exegetes  ; that  it  must  be 
so  understood  in  that  connection  is  admitted  by  those  who  are  not  under  the 
control  of  a doctrinal  bias.  See  my  annotations  to  Lange’s  Com.  on  Matthew, 
26  : 26,  pp.  470  sqq. 


§ 56.  SACRED  PLACES. 


475 


§ 56.  Sacred  Places . 

Although,  as  the  omnipresent  Spirit,  God  may  be  worshipped 
in  all  places  of  the  universe,  which  is  his  temple,1  yet  our  finite, 
sensuous  nature,  and  the  need  of  united  devotion,  require  special 
localities  or  sanctuaries  consecrated  to  his  worship.  The  first 
Christians,  after  the  example  of  the  Lord,  frequented  the  temple 
at  Jerusalem  and  the  synagogues,  so  long  as  their  relation  to  the 
Mosaic  economy  allowed.  But  besides  this,  they  assembled  also 
from  the  first  in  private  houses,  especially  for  the  communion 
and  the  love  feast.  The  church  itself  was  founded,  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  in  the  upper  room  of  an  humble  dwelling. 

The  prominent  members  and  first  converts,  as  Mary,  the 
mother  of  John  Mark  in  Jerusalem,  Cornelius  in  Caesarea, 
Lydia  in  Philippi,  Jason  in  Thessalonica,  Justus  in  Corinth, 
Priscilla  in  Ephesus,  Philemon  in  Colosse,  gladly  opened  their 
houses  for  social  worship.  In  larger  cities,  as  in  Pome,  the 
Christian  community  divided  itself  into  several  such  assemblies 
at  private  houses,3  which,  however,  are  always  addressed  in  the 
epistles  as  a unit. 

That  the  Christians  in  the  apostolic  age  erected  special  houses 
of  worship  is  out  of  the  question,  even  on  account  of  their  per- 
secution by  Jews  and  Gentiles,  to  say  nothing  of  their  general 
poverty ; and  the  transition  of  a whole  synagogue  to  the  new 
faith  was  no  doubt  very  rare.  As  the  Saviour  of  the  world  was 
born  in  a stable,  and  ascended  to  heaven  from  a mountain,  so 
his  apostles  and  their  successors  down  to  the  third  century, 
preached  in  the  streets,  the  markets,  on  mountains,  in  ships, 
sepulchres,  caves,  and  deserts,  and  in  the  homes  of  their  con- 
verts. But  how  many  thousands  of  costly  churches  and  chapels 
have  since  been  built  and  are  constantly  being  built  in  all  parts 
of  the  world  to  the  honor  of  the  crucified  Redeemer,  who  in 
the  days  of  his  humiliation  had  no  place  of  his  own  to  rest  his 
head ! 3 

1 Comp.  John  4 : 24. 

2 eKK\t](r'iai  kqlt  oIkov,  Rom.  16  : 5 ; 1 Cor.  16  : 19.  3 Luke  9 : 58. 


476 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


§ 57.  Sacred  Times — The  Lord's  Day. 

Literature. 

George  Holden  : The  Christian  Sabbath.  London,  1825.  (See  ch.  V.) 
W.  Hengstenberg  : The  Lord's  Day.  Transl.  from  the  German  by  James 
Martin , London,  1853.  (Purely  exegetical;  defends  the  continen- 
tal view,  but  advocates  a better  practical  observance.) 

John  T.  Baylee  : History  of  the  Sabbath.  London,  1857.  (See  chs.  X.- 
XIII.) 

James  Aug.  Hessey  : Sunday:  Its  Origin , History , and  Present  Obliga- 
tion. Bampton  Lectures , preached  before  the  University  of  Oxford, 
London,  1860.  (Defends  the  Dominican  and  moderate  Anglican,  as 
distinct  both  from  the  Continental  latitudinarian,  and  from  the 
Puritanic  Sabbatarian,  view  of  Sunday,  with  proofs  from  the  church 
fathers.) 

James  Gilfillan  : The  Sabbath  viewed  in  the  Light  of  Reason , Revelation, 
and  History,  with  Sketches  of  its  Literature.  Edinb.  1861,  repub- 
lished and  widely  circulated  by  the  Am.  Tract  Society  and  the 
“New  York  Sabbath  Committee,”  New  York,  1862.  (The  fullest 
and  ablest  defence  of  the  Puritan  and  Scotch  Presbyterian  theory  of 
the  Christian  Sabbath,  especially  in  its  practical  aspects.) 

Robert  Cox  (F.  S.  A.) : Sabbath  Laws  and  Sabbath  Duties.  Edinb.  1853. 
By  the  same  : The  Literature  of  the  Sabbath  Question.  Edinb.  1865, 
2 vols.  (Historical,  literary,  and  liberal.) 

Th.  Zahn  : Geschichte  des  Sonntags  in  der  alten  Kirche.  Hannover,  1878. 
There  is  a very  large  Sabbath  literature  in  the  English  language,  of  a 
popular  and  practical  character.  For  the  Anglo-American  theory 
and  history  of  the  Christian  Sabbath,  compare  the  author’s  essay, 
The  Anglo-American  Sabbath,  New  York,  1863  (in  English  and  Ger- 
man), the  publications  of  the  Hew  York  Sabbath  Committee  from 
1857-1886,  the  Sabbath  Essays,  ed.  by  Will.  C.  Wood,  Boston  (Congreg. 
Publ.  Soc.),  1879 ; and  A.  E.  Waffle  : The  Loi'd's  Day,  Philad.  1886. 

As  every  place,  so  is  every  day  and  hour  alike  sacred  to  God, 
who  fills  all  space  and  all  time,  and  can  be  worshipped  every- 
where and  always.  But,  from  the  necessary  limitations  of  our 
earthly  life,  as  well  as  from  the  nature  of  social  and  public  wor- 
ship, springs  the  use  of  sacred  seasons.  The  apostolic  church 
followed  in  general  the  Jewish  usage,  but  purged  it  from  super- 
stition and  filled  it  with  the  spirit  of  faith  and  freedom. 

1.  Accordingly,  the  Jewish  hours  of  daily  prayer,  particularly 


§ 57.  SACRED  TIMES — TIIE  LORD’S  DAY. 


477 


in  the  morning  and  evening,  were  observed  as  a matter  of  habit, 
besides  the  strictly  private  devotions  which  are  bound  to  no  time. 

2.  The  Lord’s  Day  took  the  place  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath  as 
the  weekly  day  of  public  worship.  The  substance  remained, 
the  form  was  changed.  The  institution  of  a periodical  weekly 
day  of  rest  for  the  body  and  the  soul  is  rooted  in  our  physical 
and  moral  nature,  and  is  as  old  as  man,  dating,  like  marriage, 
from  paradise.1  This  is  implied  in  the  profound  saying  of  our 
Lord  : u The  Sabbath  is  made  for  man.” 

It  is  incorporated  in  the  Decalogue,  the  moral  law,  which 
Christ  did  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil,  and  which  cannot 
be  robbed  of  one  commandment  without  injury  to  all  the  rest. 

At  the  same  time  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  hedged  around  by 
many  national  and  ceremonial  restrictions,  which  were  not  in- 
tended to  be  permanent,  but  were  gradually  made  so  prominent 
as  to  overshadow  its  great  moral  aim,  and  to  make  man  sub- 
servient to  the  sabbath  instead  of  the  sabbath  to  man.  After 
the  exile  and  in  the  hands  o£  the  Pharisees  it  became  a legal 
bondage  rather  than  a privilege  and  benediction.  Christ  as  the 
Lord  of  the  Sabbath  opposed  this  mechanical  ceremonialism 
and  restored  the  true  spirit  and  benevolent  aim  of  the  institu- 

1 Gen.  2 : 3.  This  passage  is  sometimes  explained  in  a proleptic  sense  ; 
but  religious  rest-days,  dies  feriati,  are  found  among  most  ancient  nations, 
and  recent  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  discoveries  confirm  the  pre-Mosaic  origin 
of  the  weekly  Sabbath.  See  Sayce’s  revision  of  George  Smith’s  Chaldean 
Account  of  Genesis , Lond.  and  N.  York,  1881,  p.  89  : ‘k  If  references  to  the 
Fall  are  few  and  obscure,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Sabbath  was  an 
Accadian  [primitive  Chaldman]  institution,  intimately  connected  with  the 
worship  of  the  seven  planets.  The  astronomical  tablets  have  shown  that  the 
seven-day  week  was  of  Accadian  origin,  each  day  of  it  being  dedicated  to  the 
sun,  moon,  and  five  planets,  and  the  word  Sabbath  itself,  under  the  form  of 
Sabattu , was  known  to  the  Assyrians,  and  explained  by  them  as  * a day  of 
rest  for  the  heart.’  A calendar  of  Saints’  days  for  the  month  of  the  inter- 
calary Elul  makes  the  7th,  14th,  19th,  21st,  and  28th  days  of  the  lunar 
months,  Sabbaths  on  which  no  work  was  allowed  to  be  done.  The  Accadian 
words  by  which  the  idea  of  Sabbath  is  denoted,  literally  mean : ‘ a day  on 
which  work  is  unlawful,’  and  are  interpreted  in  the  bilingual  tablets  as  signify- 
ing * a day  of  peace  or  completion  of  labors.’  ” Smith  then  gives  the  rigid  in- 
junctions which  the  calendar  lays  down  to  the  king  for  each  of  these  sabbaths. 
Comp,  also  Transactions  of  Soc.  for  Bibl.  Archceol. , vol.  Y.,  427. 


478 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


tion.1  When  the  slavish,  superstitious,  and  self-righteous  sal> 
batarianism  of  the  Pharisees  crept  into  the  Galatian  churches 
and  was  made  a condition  of  justification,  Paul  rebuked  it  as  a 
relapse  into  Judaism.2 

The  day  was  transferred  from  the  seventh  to  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  not  on  the  ground  of  a particular  command,  but  by 
the  free  spirit  of  the  gospel  and  by  the  power  of  certain  great 
facts  which  lie  at  the  foundation  of  the  Christian  church.  It 
was  on  that  day  that  Christ  rose  from  the  dead  ; that  he  appeared 
to  Mary,  the  disciples  of  Emmaus,  and  the  assembled  apostles ; 
that  he  poured  out  his  Spirit  and  founded  the  church ; 3 and 
that  he  revealed  to  his  beloved  disciple  the  mysteries  of  the 
future.  Hence,  the  first  day  was  already  in  the  apostolic  age 
honorably  designated  as  “ the  Lord’s  Day.”  On  that  day  Paul 
met  with  the  disciples  at  Troas  and  preached  till  midnight.  On 
that  day  he  ordered  the  Galatian  and  Corinthian  Christians  to 
make,  no  doubt  in  connection  with  divine  service,  their  weekly 
contributions  to  charitable  objects  according  to  their  ability.  It 
appears,  therefore,  from  the  Kew  Testament  itself,  that  Sunday 
was  observed  as  a day  of  worship,  and  in  special  commemora- 
tion of  the  ^Resurrection,  whereby  the  work  of  redemption  was 
finished.4 

The  universal  and  uncontradicted  Sunday  observance  in  the 

1 Matt.  12  : 1 sqq.,  10  sqq.,  and  the  parallel  passages  in  Mark  and  Luke  ; 
also  John  5 : 8 sqq.  ; 6 : 23  ; 9 : 14,  16. 

2 Gal.  4 : 10  ; comp.  Rom.  14  : 5 ; Col.  2 : 16.  The  spirit  of  the  pharisaical 
Sabbatarianism  with  which.  Christ  and  St.  Paul  had  to  deal  may  be  inferred 
from  the  fact  that  even  Gamaliel,  Paul’s  teacher,  and  one  of  the  wisest  and 
most  liberal  Rabbis,  let  his  ass  die  on  the  sabbath  because  he  thought  it  a sin 
to  unload  him ; and  this  was  praised  as  an  act  of  piety.  Other  Rabbis  pro- 
hibited the  saving  of  an  ass  from  a ditch  on  the  sabbath,  but  allowed  a plank 
to  be  laid  so  as  to  give  the  beast  a chance  to  save  himself.  One  great  contro- 
versy between  the  schools  of  Shammai  and  Hillel  turned  around  the  mighty 
question  whether  it  was  lawful  to  eat  an  egg  which  was  laid  on  the  sabbath 
day,  and  the  wise  Hillel  denied  it ! Then  it  would  be  still  more  sinful  to  eat 
a chicken  that  had  the  misfortune  to  be  bom,  or  to  be  killed,  on  a sabbath. 

3 The  day  of  Pentecost  (whether  Saturday  or  Sunday)  is  disputed,  but  the 
church  always  celebrated  it  on  a Sunday.  See  § 24,  p.  241. 

4 John  20  : 19,  26  ; Acts  20  : 7;  1 Cor.  16  : 2 ; Rev.  1 : 10. 


§ 57.  SACRED  TIMES — THE  LORD’S  DAY. 


479 


second  century  can  only  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  it  had  its 
roots  in  apostolic  practice.  8uch  observance  is  the  more  to  be 
appreciated  as  it  had  no  support  in  civil  legislation  before  the 
age  of  Constantine,  and  must  have  been  connected  with  many 
inconveniences,  considering  the  lowly  social  condition  of  the 
majority  of  Christians  and  their  dependence  upon  their  heathen 
masters  and  employers.  Sunday  thus  became,  by  an  easy  and 
natural  transformation,  the  Christian  Sabbath  or  wreekly  day  of 
rest,  at  once  answering  the  typical  import  of  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath, and  itself  forming  in  turn  a type  of  the  eternal  rest  of  the 
people  of  God  in  the  heavenly  Canaan.1  In  the  gospel  dispen- 
sation the  Sabbath  is  not  a degradation,  but  an  elevation,  of  the 
week  days  to  a higher  plane,  looking  to  the  consecration  of  all 
time  and  all  work.  It  is  not  a legal  ceremonial  bondage,  but 
rather  a precious  gift  of  grace,  a privilege,  a holy  rest  in  God 
in  the  midst  of  the  unrest  of  the  world,  a day  of  spiritual  re- 
freshing in  communion  with  God  and  in  the  fellowship  of  the 
saints,  a foretaste  and  pledge  of  the  never-ending  Sabbath  in 
heaven. 

The  due  observance  of  it,  in  which  the  churches  of  England, 
Scotland,  and  America,  to  their  incalculable  advantage,  excel  the 
churches  of  the  European  continent,  is  a wholesome  school  of 
discipline,  a means  of  grace  for  the  people,  a safeguard  of  pub- 
lic morality  and  religion,  a bulwrark  against  infidelity,  and  a 
source  of  immeasurable  blessing  to  the  church,  the  state,  and 
the  family.  Next  to  the  Church  and  the  Bible,  the  Lord’s  Day 
is  the  chief  pillar  of  Christian  society. 

Besides  the  Christian  Sunday,  the  Jewish  Christians  observed 
their  ancient  Sabbath  also,  till  Jerusalem  was  destroyed.  After 
that  event,  the  Jewish  habit  continued  only  among  the  Ebionites 
and  Nazarenes. 

As  Sunday  was  devoted  to  the  commemoration  of  the  Sav- 
iour’s resurrection,  and  observed  as  a day  of  thanksgiving  and 
joy,  so,  at  least  as  early  as  the  second  century,  if  not  sooner, 


1 Comp.  Heb.  4 : 1-11  ; Rev.  4 : 13. 


480 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Friday  came  to  be  observed  as  a day  of  repentance,  with  prayer 
and  fasting,  in  commemoration  of  the  sufferings  and  death  of 
Christ. 

3.  Annual  festivals.  There  is  no  injunction  for  their  observe 
ance,  direct  or  indirect,  in  the  apostolic  writings,  as  there  is  no 
basis  for  them  in  the  Decalogue.  But  Christ  observed  them, 
and  two  of  the  festivals,  the  Passover  and  Pentecost,  admitted 
of  an  easy  transformation  similar  to  that  of  the  Jewish  into  the 
Christian  Sabbath.  From  some  hints  in  the  Epistles,1  viewed 
in  the  light  of  the  universal  and  uncontradicted  practice  of  the 
church  in  the  second  century,  it  may  be  inferred  that  the  annual 
celebration  of  the  death  and  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and 
of  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  originated  in  the  apostolic 
age.  In  truth,  Christ  crucified,  risen,  and  living  in  the  church, 
was  the  one  absorbing  thought  of  the  early  Christians ; and  as 
this  thought  expressed  itself  in  the  weekly  observance  of  Sun- 
day, so  it  would  also  very  naturally  transform  the  two  great 
typical  feasts  of  the  Old  Testament  into  the  Christian  Easter- 
and  Whit-Sunday.  The  Paschal  controversies  of  the  second  cen- 
tury related  not  to  the  fact,  but  to  the  time  of  the  Easter  festi- 
val, and  Polycarp  of  Smyrna  and  Anicet  of  Pome  traced  their 
customs  to  an  unimportant  difference  in  the  practice  of  the 
apostles  themselves. 

Of  other  annual  festivals,  the  Hew  Testament  contains  not 
the  faintest  trace.  Christmas  came  in  during  the  fourth  cen- 
tury by  a natural  development  of  the  idea  of  a church  year, 
as  a sort  of  chronological  creed  of  the  people  The  festivals  of 
Mary,  the  Apostles,  Saints,  and  Martyrs,  followed  gradually,  as 
the  worship  of  saints  spread  in  the  Hicene  and  post-Nicene  age, 
until  almost  every  day  was  turned  first  into  a holy  day  and  then 
into  a holiday.  As  the  saints  overshadowed  the  Lord,  the 
saints’  days  overshadowed  the  Lord’s  Day. 


1 1 Cor.  5 : 7,  8 ; 16  : 8 ; Acts  18  : 21  ; 20  : 6,  16. 


§ 58.  LITERATURE. 


481 


CHAPTER  X. 

ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 

§ 58.  Literature. 

I.  Sources. 

The  Acts  represent  the  first,  the  Pastoral  Epistles  the  second  stage 
of  the  apostolic  church  polity.  Baur  ( Die  sogenannten  Pastor- 
albriefe  des  Ap.  Paulus , 1835),  Holtzmann  ( Die  Pastor albriefe, 
1880,  pp.  190  sqq.),  and  others,  who  deny  the  Pauline  authorship 
of  the  Epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  date  the  organization  laid 
down  there  from  the  post-apostolic  age,  but  it  belongs  to  the  period 
from  a.d.  60-70.  The  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  (1  Cor.  12  : 28) 
and  to  the  Ephesians  (4  : 11),  and  the  Apocalyptic  Epistles  (Rev.  chs. 
2 and  3)  contain  important  hints  on  the  church  offices. 

Comp,  the  Didache , and  the  Epp.  of  Clement  and  Ignatius. 

II.  General  Works. 

Comp,  in  part  the  works  quoted  in  ch.  IX.  (especially  Yitringa),  and 
the  respective  sections  in  the  “ Histories  of  the  Apostolic  Age  ” by 
Neander,  Thiersch  (pp.  73, 150,  281),  Lechler,  Lange,  and  Schaff 
(Amer.  ed.,  pp.  495-545). 

m.  Separate  Works. 

Episcopal  and  Presbyterian  writers  during  the  seventeenth  century,  and 
more  recently,  have  paid  most  attention  to  this  chapter,  generally 
with  a view  of  defending  their  theory  of  church  polity. 

Richard  Hooker  (called  “the  Judicious,”  moderate  Anglican,  d.  1600) : 
Ecclesiastical  Polity , 1594,  and  often  since,  best  edition  by  Keble , 
1836,  in  4 vols.  A standard  work  for  Episcopal  churchmen. 

Jos.  Bingham  (Anglican,  d.  1668) : Origines  Ecclesiasticcp  ; or,  The  Anti- 
quities of  the  Christian  Church , first  published  1710-22,  in  10  vols. 
8vo,  and  often  since,  Books  II.-IY.  Still  an  important  work. 

Thomas  Cartwright  (the  father  of  English  Presbyterianism,  d.  1603) : 
Directory  of  Church  Government  anciently  contended  for , written  in 
1583,  published  by  authority  of  the  Long  Parliament  in  1644. 


4 82 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


In  the  controversy  during  the  Long  Parliament  and  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly,  Bishop  Hall  and  Archbishop  Ussher  were  the  most 
learned  champions  of  episcopacy ; while  the  five  Smectymnians  (so 
called  from  their  famous  tract  Smectymnuus , 1641,  in  reply  to  Hall), 
i.e.,  /Stephen  Marshall,  Edmund  Calamy,  ^Thomas  Foung,  .Matthew 
jVewcomen,  and  TYilliam  /S'purstow,  were  the  most  prominent  Pres- 
byterians trying  to  “ demonstrate  the  parity  of  bishops  and  presby- 
ters in  Scripture,  and  the  antiquity  of  ruling  elders.”  See  also  A 
Vindication  of  the  Presbyterian  Government  and  Ministry , London, 
1650,  and  Jus  Divinum  Ministerii  Evangelici,  or  the  Divine  Right  of 
the  Gospel  Ministry , London,  1654,  both  published  by  the  Provincial 
Assembly  of  London.  These  books  have  only  historical  interest. 

Samuel  Miller  (Presbyterian  d.  1850)  : Letters  concerning  the  Constitu- 
tion and  Order  of  the  Christian  Ministry , 2d  ed.,  Philadelphia,  1830. 

James  P.  Wilson  (Presbyterian) : The  Primitive  Government  of  Christian 
Churches.  Philadelphia,  1833  (a  learned  and  able  work). 

Joh.  Adam  Mohler  (Rom.  Cath.,  d.  1848)  : Die  Einheit  der  Kirche,  oder 
das  Princip  des  Katholicismus , dargestellt  im  Geiste  der  Kirchenvater 
dei'  drei  ersten  Jahrhunderte.  Tubingen,  1825  (new  ed.  1844).  More 
important  for  the  post  apostolic  age. 

Rich.  Rothe  (d.  1866) : Die  Anfdnge  der  chi'istlichen  Kirche  u.  ihrei'  Ver - 
fassung , vol.  I.  Wittenb.,  1837,  pp.  141  sqq.  A Protestant  coun- 
terpart of  Mohler’s  treatise,  exceedingly  able,  learned,  and  acute, 
but  wrong  on  the  question  of  church  and  state,  and  partly  also  on 
the  origin  of  the  episcopate,  which  he  traces  back  to  the  apostolic 
age. 

F.  Chr.  Baur  : Ueber  den  Ursprung  des  Episcopates  in  der  christl.  Kirche. 
Tubingen,  1838.  Against  Rothe. 

William  Palmer  (Anglo-Catholic)  : A Treatise  on  the  Church  of  Christ. 
London,  1838,  2 vols.,  3d  ed.,  1841.  Amer.  ed.,  with  notes,  by 
Bishop  Whittingham , New  York,  1841. 

W.  Lohe  (Luth.) : Die  AT.  T.  lichen  Aemter  u.  ihr  Verhdltniss  zur  Gemeinde. 
Niirnb.  1848.  Also  : Drei  Bucher  von  der  Kirche , 1845. 

Fr.  Delitzsch  (Luth.)  : Vier  Bucher  von  der  Kirche.  Leipz.,  1847. 

J.  Kostlin  (Luth.) : Das  Wesen  der  Kirche  nach  Lehre  und  Geschichte  des 
N.  T.,  Gotha,  1854 ; 2d  ed.  1872. 

Samuel  Davidson  (Independent) : The  Ecclesiastical  Polity  of  the  New 
Testament.  London,  1848  ; 2d  ed.  1854. 

Ralph  Wardlaw  (Independent)  : Congregational  Independency , in  con- 
tradistinction to  Episcopacy  and  Presbyterianism , the  Church  Polity 
of  the  New  Testament.  London,  1848. 

Albert  Barnes  (Presbyterian,  d.  1870) : Organization  and  Government  of 
the  Apostolic  Church.  Philadelphia,  1855. 

Charles  Hodge  (Presbyterian,  d.  1878)  and  others : Essays  on  the  Primi- 
tive Church  Offices,  reprinted  from  the  “Princeton  Review,”  N.  York, 


§ 58.  LITERATURE. 


483 


1858.  Also  Ch.  Hodge:  Discussions  in  Church  Polity . Selected 
from  the  “ Princeton  Review,”  and  arranged  by  W.  Durant.  New 
York,  1878. 

Bishop  Kaye  (Episc.)  : Account  of  the  External  Discipline  and  Goveim- 
ment  of  the  Church  of  Christ  in  the  First  Three  Centuries.  London, 
1855. 

K.  Lechler  (Luth.) : Die  N.  Testamentliche  Lelvre  vom  heil.  Amte.  Stutt- 
gart, 1857. 

A.LBRECHT  Ritschl  : Die  Entstehung  der  altkatholischen  Kirche , 2d  ed., 
thoroughly  revised,  Bonn,  1857  (605  pp.).  Purely  historical  and 
critical. 

James  Bannerman  (Presbyterian) : The  Church  of  Christ.  A Treatise  on 
the  Nature , Powers , Ordinances , Discipline , and  Government  of  the 
Christian  Church.  Edinburgh,  1868,  2 vols. 

John  J.  McElhinney  (Episc.)  : The  Doctrine  of  the  Church.  A Historical 
Monograph.  Philadelphia,  1871.  It  begins  after  the  apostolic  age, 
but  has  a useful  list  of  works  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  from 
a.d.  100  to  1870. 

G.  A.  Jacob  (Low  Church  Episc.)  : Ecclesiastical  Polity  of  the  New  Tes- 

tament : Study  for  the  Present  Crisis  in  the  Church  of  England.  Lon- 
don, 1871 ; 5th  Amer.  ed.,  New  York  (Whittaker),  1879. 

J.  B.  Lightfoot  (Evangelical  Broad  Church  Episcop.,  Bishop  of  Dur- 
ham, very  learned,  able,  and  fair) : The  Christian  Ministry.  Excur- 
sus to  his  Commentary  on  Philippians.  London,  1868,  3d  ed. 
London,  1873,  pp.  179-267 ; also  separately  printed  in  New  York 
(without  notes),  1879. 

Charles  Wordsworth  (High  Church  Episcop.,  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews)  : 
The  Outlines  of  the  Christian  Ministry.  London,  1872. 

Henry  Cotterill  (Bishop  of  Edinburgh)  : The  Genesis  of  the  Church. 
Edinburgh  and  London,  1872. 

W.  Beyschlag  : Die  christliche  Gemeindeverfassung  im  Zeitalter  des  N. 
Testaments  (Crowned  prize  essay).  Harlem,  1876. 

C.  Weizsacker  : Die  Versammlungen  der  altesten  Christengemeinden.  In 
the  “ Jahrbucher  fur  Deutsche  Theologie,”  Gotha,  1876,  pp.  474- 
530.  His  Apost.  Zeitalter  (1886),  pp.  606-645. 

Henry  M.  Dexter  (Congregationalist)  : Congregationalism . 4th  ed. 
Boston,  1876. 

E.  Mellor  : Priesthood  in  the  Light  of  the  New  Testament.  Lond.,  1876. 

J.  B.  Paton  : The  Origin  of  the  Priesthood  in  the  Christian  Church.  Lon- 
don, 1877. 

H.  Wetngarten  : Die  XJmwandlung  der  ursprunglichen  christl.  Gemeinde - 

organisation  zur  Jcaiholischen  Kirche,  in  Sybel’s  “ Histor.  Zeitschrift  ” 
for  1881,  pp.  441-467. 

Edwin  Hatch  (Broad  Church  Episcop.) : The  Organization  of  the  Early 
Christian  Churches.  Bampton  Lectures  for  1880.  Oxford  and 


484 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Cambridge,  1881. — Discusses  the  post-apostolic  organization  (Bish- 
ops, Deacons,  Presbyters,  Clergy  and  Laity,  Councils,  etc.).  A 
learned  and  independent  work,  which  endeavors  to  show  that  the 
development  of  the  organization  of  the  church  was  gradual;  that 
the  elements  of  which  it  was  composed  were  already  existing  in 
human  society ; that  the  form  was  originally  a democracy  and  be- 
came by  circumstances  a monarchy ; and  that  the  Christian  church 
has  shown  its  vitality  and  its  divinity  by  readjusting  its  form  in  suc- 
cessive ages.  German  translation  by  Ad.  Harnack,  Giessen,  1883. 
Arthur  P.  Stanley  (Broad  Church  Episc.,  d.  1881) : Christian  Institu- 
tions, London  and  New  York,  1881.  Ch.  X.  on  the  Clergy. 

Ch.  Gore  : The  Ministry  of  the  Church , London,  1889  (Anglo-Catholic). 
Articles  on  the  Christian  Ministry  by  Sanday,  Harnack,  Milligan, 
Gore,  Simcox,  Salmon,  and  others,  in  “ The  Expositor,”  London, 
1887  and  1888. 

§ 59.  The  Christian  Ministry , and  its  Relation  to  the  Chris- 
tian Community. 

Christianity  exists  not  merely  as  a power  or  principle  in  this 
world,  but  also  in  an  institutional  and  organized  form  which  is 
intended  to  preserve  and  protect  (not  to  obstruct)  it.  Christ 
established  a visible  church  with  apostles,  as  authorized  teachers 
and  rulers,  and  with  two  sacred  rites,  baptism  and  the  holy 
communion,  to  be  observed  to  the  end  of  the  world.1 

At  the  same  time  he  laid  down  no  minute  arrangements,  but 
only  the  simple  and  necessary  elements  of  an  organization, 
wisely  leaving  the  details  to  be  shaped  by  the  growing  and 
changing  wants  of  the  church  in  different  ages  and  countries. 
In  this  respect  Christianity,  as  a dispensation  of  the  Spirit, 
differs  widely  from  the  Mosaic  theocracy,  as  a dispensation  of 
the  letter. 

The  ministerial  office  was  instituted  by  the  Lord  before  his 
ascension,  and  solemnly  inaugurated  on  the  first  Christian  Pen- 
tecost by  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  be  the  regular 
organ  of  the  kingly  power  of  Christ  on  earth  in  founding,  main- 
taining, and  extending  the  church.  It  appears  in  the  New  Testa* 

1 Comp.  Matt.  16:18;  18:18;  28:18-20;  Mark  16:15;  Luke  22:  19; 
John  20  : 21-23  ; Eph.  2 : 20  ff. ; 4 : 11  ff. 


§ 59.  TIIE  CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY. 


485 


ment  under  different  names,  descriptive  of  its  various  functions : 
— the  “ ministry  of  the  word,”  “ of  the  Spirit,”  “ of  righteous- 
ness,” “of  reconciliation.”  It  includes  the  preaching  of  the 
gospel,  the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  and  church  disci- 
pline or  the  power  of  the  keys,  the  power  to  open  and  shut  the 
gates  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  in  other  words,  to  declare  to 
the  penitent  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  to  the  unworthy  ex- 
communication  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  Christ. 
The  ministers  of  the  gospel  are,  in  an  eminent  sense,  servants 
of  God,  and,  as  such,  servants  of  the  churches  in  the  noble 
spirit  of  self-denying  love  according  to  the  example  of  Christ, 
for  the  eternal  salvation  of  the  souls  intrusted  to  their  charge. 
They  are  called — not  exclusively,  but  emphatically — the  light  of 
the  world,  the  salt  of  the  earth,  fellowr-workers  with  God, 
stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God,  ambassadors  for  Christ.  And 
this  unspeakable  dignity  brings  with  it  corresponding  responsi- 
bility. Even  a Paul,  contemplating  the  glory  of  an  office, 
which  is  a savor  of  life  unto  life  to  believers,  and  of  death  unto 
death  to  the  impenitent,  exclaims:  “ Who  is  sufficient  for  these 
things  ? ” 1 and  ascribes  all  his  sufficiency  and  success  to  the  un- 
merited grace  of  God. 

The  internal  call  to  the  sacred  office  and  the  moral  qualifica- 
tion for  it  must  come  from  the  Holy  Spirit,2  and  be  recognized 
and  ratified  by  the  church  through  her  proper  organs.  The 
apostles  were  called,  indeed,  immediately  by  Christ  to  the  work 
of  founding  the  church  ; but  so  soon  as  a community  of  believers 
arose,  the  congregation  took  an  active  part  also  in  all  religious 
affairs.  The  persons  thus  inwardly  and  outwardly  designated 
by  the  voice  of  Christ  and  his  church,  were  solemnly  set  apart 
and  inducted  into  their  ministerial  functions  by  the  symbolical 
act  of  ordination ; that  is,  by  prayer  and  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  apostles  or  their  representatives,  conferring  or 
authoritatively  confirming  and  sealing  the  appropriate  spiritual 
gifts.3 

1 2 Cor.  2 : 16.  2 Acts  20  : 28. 

3 Acts  G : 6 ; 1 Tim.  4 : 14;  5 : 22 ; 2 Tim.  1 : 6. 


486 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Yet,  high  as  the  sacred  office  is  in  its  divine  origin  and  im- 
port,  it  was  separated  by  no  impassable  chasm  from  the  body  of 
believers.  The  Jewish  and  later  Catholic  antithesis  of  clergy 
and  laity  has  no  place  in  the  apostolic  age.  The  ministers,  on 
the  one  part,  are  as  sinful  and  as  dependent  on  redeeming  grace 
as  the  members  of  the  congregation ; and  those  members,  on 
the  other,  share  equally  with  the  ministers  in  the  blessings  of 
the  gospel,  enjoy  equal  freedom  of  access  to  the  throne  of  grace, 
and  are  called  to  the  same  direct  communion  with  Christ,  the 
head  of  the  whole  body.  The  very  mission  of  the  church  is,  to 
reconcile  all  men  with  God,  and  make  them  true  followers  of 
Christ.  And  though  this  glorious  end  can  be  attained  only 
through  a long  process  of  history,  yet  regeneration  itself  con- 
tains the  germ  and  the  pledge  of  the  final  perfection.  The 
hTew  Testament,  looking  at  the  principle  of  the  new  life  and 
the  high  calling  of  the  Christian,  styles  all  believers  “ brethren,” 
“saints,”  a “spiritual  temple,”  a “peculiar  people,”  a “holy 
and  royal  priesthood.”  It  is  remarkable,  that  Peter  in  particular 
should  present  the  idea  of  the  priesthood  as  the  destiny  of  all, 
and  apply  the  term  clerus  not  to  the  ministerial  order  as  distinct 
from  the  laity,  but  to  the  community;  thus  regarding  every 
Christian  congregation  as  a spiritual  tribe  of  Levi,  a peculiar 
people,  holy  to  the  Lord.1 

The  temporal  organization  of  the  empirical  church  is  to  be 
a means  (and  not  a hindrance,  as  it  often  is)  for  the  actualiza- 
tion of  the  ideal  republic  of  God  when  all  Christians  shall  be 
prophets,  priests,  and  kings,  and  fill  all  time  and  all  space  with 
his  praise. 

Notes. 

1.  Bishop  Lightfoot  begins  his  valuable  discussion  on  the  Christian 
ministry  (p.  179)  with  this  broad  and  liberal  statement : “ The  kingdom 
of  Christ,  not  being  a kingdom  of  this  world,  is  not  limited  by  the  re- 

1 1 Pet.  2 : 5,  9 ; 5 : 3 ; comp.  Rev.  1 : 6 ; 5 : 10 ; 20  : 6.  The  English  “ priest  ” 
(the  German  Priester ) is  etymologically  a harmless  contraction  of  “presbyter  ” 
\i. e. , elder),  but  has  become  a synonyme  for  the  Latin  sncerdos  (Upevs,  yc), 
meaning  an  offerer  of  sacrifices  and  a mediator  between  God  and  the  people 
Milton  said  rather  sarcastically,  “ presbyter  is  priest  writ  large.” 


§ 59.  TIIE  CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY. 


487 


strictions  which  fetter  other  societies,  political  or  religious.  It  is  in  the 
fullest  sense  free,  comprehensive,  universal.  It  displays  this  character, 
not  only  in  the  acceptance  of  all  comers  who  seek  admission,  irrespective 
of  race  or  caste  or  sex,  but  also  in  the  instruction  and  treatment  of 
those  who  are  already  its  members.  It  has  no  sacred  days  or  seasons, 
no  special  sanctuaries,  because  every  time  and  every  place  alike  are 
holy.  Above  all  it  has  no  sacerdotal  system.  It  interposes  no  sacri- 
ficial tribe  or  class  between  God  and  man,  by  whose  intervention  alone 
God  is  reconciled  and  man  forgiven.  Each  individual  member  holds 
personal  communion  with  the  Divine  Head.  To  Him  immediately  he 
is  responsible,  and  from  Him  directly  he  obtains  pardon  and  draws 
strength.” 

But  he  immediately  proceeds  to  qualify  this  statement,  and  says  that 
this  is  simply  the  ideal  view — “ a holy  season  extending  the  whole  year 
round,  a temple  confined  only  by  the  limits  of  the  habitable  world,  a 
priesthood  co-extensive  with  the  race  ” — and  that  the  Church  of  Christ 
can  no  more  hold  together  without  officers,  rules,  and  institutions  than 
any  other  society  of  men.  As  appointed  days  and  set  places  are  indis- 
pensable to  her  efficiency,  so  also  the  Church  could  not  fulfil  the  pur- 
poses for  which  she  exists  without  rulers  and  teachers,  without  a minis- 
try of  reconciliation,  in  short,  without  an  order  of  men  who  may  in  some 
sense  be  designated  a priesthood.  In  this  respect  the  ethics  of  Chris- 
tianity present  an  analogy  to  the  politics.  Here  also  the  ideal  concep- 
tion and  the  actual  realization  are  incommensurate  and  in  a manner 
contradictory.” 

2.  Nearly  all  denominations  appeal  for  their  church  polity  to  the  New 
Testament,  with  about  equal  right  and  equal  wrong : the  Romanists  to 
the  primacy  of  Peter ; the  Irvingites  to  the  apostles  and  prophets  and 
evangelists,  and  the  miraculous  gifts ; the  Episcopalians  to  the  bishops, 
the  angels,  and  James  of  Jerusalem ; the  Presbyterians  to  the  presby- 
ters and  their  identity  with  the  bishops  ; the  Congregation alists  to  the 
independence  of  the  local  congregations  and  the  absence  of  centraliza- 
tion. The  most  that  can  be  said  is,  that  the  apostolic  age  contains  fruit- 
ful germs  for  various  ecclesiastical  organizations  subsequently  developed, 
but  none  of  them  can  claim  divine  authority  except  for  the  gospel  min- 
istry, which  is  common  to  all.  Dean  Stanley  asserts  that  no  existing 
church  can  find  any  pattern  or  platform  of  its  government  in  the  first 
century,  and  thus  strongly  contrasts  the  apostolic  and  post-apostolic 
organizations  (/.c.) : “ It  is  certain  that  the  officers  of  the  apostolical  or 
of  any  subsequent  church,  were  not  part  of  the  original  institution  of  the 
Founder  of  our  religion ; that  of  Bishop,  Presbyter,  and  Deacon ; of 
Metropolitan,  Patriarch,  and  Pope,  there  is  not  the  shadow  of  a trace  in 
the  four  Gospels.  It  is  certain  that  they  arose  gradually  out  of  the  pre- 
existing institutions  either  of  the  Jewish  synagogue,  or  of  the  Roman 
empire,  or  of  the  Greek  municipalities,  or  under  the  pressure  of  local 


483 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


emergencies.  It  is  certain  that  throughout  the  first  century,  and  fol 
the  first  years  of  the  second,  that  is,  through  the  later  chapters  of  the 
Acts,  the  Apostolical  Epistles,  and  the  writings  of  Clement  and  Hermas. 
Bishop  and  Presbyter  were  convertible  terms,  and  that  the  body  of  men 
so-called  were  the  rulers — so  far  as  any  permanent  rulers  existed — of  the 
early  church.  It  is  certain  that,  as  the  necessities  of  the  time  demanded, 
first  at  Jerusalem,  then  in  Asia  Minor,  the  elevation  of  one  Presbyter 
above  the  rest  by  the  almost  universal  law,  which  even  in  republics 
engenders  a monarchial  element,  the  word  ‘ Bishop  ’ gradually  changed 
its  meaning,  and  by  the  middle  of  the  second  century  became  restricted 
to  the  chief  Presbyter  of  the  locality.  It  is  certain  that  in  no  instance 
were  the  apostles  called  ‘ Bishops  ’ in  any  other  sense  than  they  were 
equally  called  ‘Presbyters’  and  ‘Deacons.’  It  is  certain  that  in  no  in- 
stance before  the  beginning  of  the  third  century  the  title  or  function  of 

the  Pagan  or  Jewish  priesthood  is  applied  to  the  Christian  pastors 

It  is  as  sure  that  nothing  like  modem  Episcopacy  existed  before  the 
close  of  the  first  century  as  it  is  that  nothing  like  modern  Presbyterian- 
ism existed  after  the  beginning  of  the  second.  That  which  was  once 
the  Gordian  knot  of  theologians  has  at  least  in  this  instance  been  untied, 
not  by  the  sword  of  persecution,  but  by  the  patient  unravelment  of 
scholarship.” 


§ 60.  Apostles , Prophets , Evangelists . 

The  ministry  originally  coincided  with  the  apostolate ; as  the 
church  was  at  first  identical  with  the  congregation  of  Jeru- 
salem. No  other  officers  are  mentioned  in  the  Gospels  and  the 
first  five  chapters  of  the  Acts.  But  when  the  believers  began 
to  number  thousands,  the  apostles  could  not  possibly  perform 
all  the  functions  of  teaching,  conducting  worship,  and  adminis- 
tering discipline ; they  were  obliged  to  create  new  offices  for 
the  ordinary  wants  of  the  congregations,  while  they  devoted 
themselves  to  the  general  supervision  and  the  further  extension 
of  the  gospel.  Thus  arose  gradually,  out  of  the  needs  of  the 
Christian  church,  though  partly  at  the  suggestion  of  the  exist- 
ing  organization  of  the  Jewish  synagogue,  the  various  general 
and  congregational  offices  in  the  church.  As  these  all  have 
their  common  root  in  the  apostolate,  so  they  partake  also,  in 
different  degrees,  of  its  divine  origin,  authority,  privileges,  and 
responsibilities. 


§ 60.  APOSTLES,  PROPHETS,  EVANGELISTS.  489 


We  notice  first,  those  offices  which  were  not  limited  to  any 
one  congregation,  but  extended  over  the  whole  church,  or  at 
least  over  a great  part  of  it.  These  are  apostles,  prophets,  and 
evangelists.  Paul  mentions  them  together  in  this  order.1 *  But 
the  prophecy  was  a gift  and  function  rather  than  an  office,  and 
the  evangelists  were  temporary  officers  charged  with  a particu- 
lar mission  under  the  direction  of  the  apostles.  All  three  are 
usually  regarded  as  extraordinary  officers  and  confined  to  the 
apostolic  age ; but  from  time  to  time  God  raises  extraordinary 
missionaries  (as  Patrick,  Columba,  Boniface,  Ansgar),  divines 
(as  Augustin,  Anselm,  Thomas  Aquinas,  Luther,  Melancthon, 
Calvin),  and  revival  preachers  (as  Bernard,  Knox,  Baxter,  Wes- 
ley, Whitefield),  who  may  well  be  called  apostles,  prophets, 
and  evangelists  of  their  age  and  nation.3 

1.  Apostles.  These  were  originally  twelve  in  number,  an- 
swering to  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.  In  place  of  the  traitor, 
Judas,  Matthias  was  chosen  by  lot,  between  the  ascension  and 
Pentecost.3  After  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  Paul  was 

1 In  Eph.  4 : 11,  he  adds  “pastors  and  teachers.”  In  1 Cor.  12  : 28  he 
enumerates  first,  apostles ; secondly,  prophets ; thirdly,  teachers ; then 
powers,  then  gifts  of  healing,  helps,  governments,  kinds  of  tongues.  Neither 
list  is  intended  to  be  strictly  methodical  and  exhaustive. 

* So  Calvin,  Inst.  IV.  ch.  3,  § 4 : “ Secundum  hanc  interpretationem  (qua 
mild  et  verbis  et  sententi®  Pauli  consentanea  videtur)  tres  ill®  functiones  {Apos- 
tolic Prophet®,  Evangelist ®]  non  ideo  institute  in  ecclesia  fuerunt , ut  perpetuce 
forent,  sed  ad  id  modo  tempus  quo  erigend®  erant  ecclesi ®,  ubi  null®  ante  fuer- 
ant,  vel  certe  a Mose  ad  Christum  traducend®.  Quanquam  non  nego  quin 
Apostolos  postea  quoque,  vel  saltern  eorum  loco  Evangelistas  inter dum  excitant 
Pens , ut  nostro  tempore  factum  est. ” Most  Protestant  historians  hold  sub- 
stantially the  same  view.  The  followers  of  the  “ Catholic  Apostolic  Church,” 
usually  called  “ Irvingites,”  claim  to  have  apostles,  prophets,  evangelists 
raised  up  by  the  Lord  himself  in  these  last  days  preparatory  to  his  Advent ; 
but  these  “apostles”  died  one  by  one,  and  their  places  remain  vacant.  See 
my  Hist,  of  the  Ap.  Church,  pp.  516  sqq.,  and  Creeds  of  Christendom , I.  905 
sqq.  In  a very  substantial  sense  the  original  apostles  survive  in  their  teach- 
ing, and  need  and  caD  have  no  successors  or  substitutes. 

3 Some  commentators  wrongly  hold  that  the  election  of  Matthias,  made 
before  the  pentecostal  illumination,  was  a hasty  and  invalid  act  of  Peter,  and 
that  Christ  alone  could  fill  the  vacancy  by  a direct  call,  which  was  intended 
for  Paul.  But  Paul  never  represents  himself  as  belonging  to  the  Twelve 
and  distinguishes  himself  from  them  as  their  equal.  See  Gal.,  chs.  1 and  2. 


490 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


added  as  the  thirteenth  by  the  direct  call  of  the  exalted  Saviour. 
He  was  the  independent  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  and  afterward 
gathered  several  subordinate  helpers  around  him.  Besides  these 
there  were  apostolic  men,  like  Barnabas,  and  James  the  brother 
of  the  Lord,  whose  standing  and  influence  were  almost  equal  to 
that  of  the  proper  apostles.  The  Twelve  (excepting  Matthias, 
who,  however,  was  an  eye-witness  of  the  resurrection)  and  Paul 
were  called  directly  by  Christ,  without  human  intervention,  to 
be  his  representatives  on  earth,  the  inspired  organs  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  founders  and  pillars  of  the  whole  church.  Their 
office  was  universal,  and  their  writings  are  to  this  day  the  un- 
erring rule  of  faith  and  practice  for  all  Christendom.  But  they 
never  exercised  their  divine  authority  in  arbitrary  and  despotic 
style.  They  always  paid  tender  regard  to  the  rights,  freedom, 
and  dignity  of  the  immortal  souls  under  their  care.  In  every 
believer,  even  in  a poor  slave  like  Onesimus,  they  recognized  a 
member  of  the  same  body  with  themselves,  a partaker  of  their 
redemption,  a beloved  brother  in  Christ.  Their  government  of 
the  church  was  a labor  of  meekness  and  love,  of  self-denial  and 
unreserved  devotion  to  the  eternal  welfare  of  the  people.  Peter, 
the  prince  of  the  apostles,  humbly  calls  himself  a “ fellow-pres- 
byter,” and  raises  his  prophetic  warning  against  the  hierarchical 
spirit  which  so  easily  takes  hold  of  church  dignitaries  and  alien- 
ates them  from  the  people. 

2.  Prophets.  These  were  inspired  and  inspiring  teachers 
and  preachers  of  the  mysteries  of  God.  They  appear  to  have 
had  special  influence  on  the  choice  of  officers,  designating  the 
persons  who  were  pointed  out  to  them  by  the  Spirit  of  God  in 
their  prayer  and  fasting,  as  peculiarly  fitted  for  missionary  labor 
or  any  other  service  in  the  church.  Of  the  prophets  the  book 
of  Acts  names  Agabus,  Barnabas,  Symeon,  Lucius,  Manaen, 
and  Saul  of  Tarsus,  Judas  and  Silas.1  The  gift  of  prophecy 
in  the  wider  sense  dwelt  in  all  the  apostles,  pre-eminently  in 
John,  the  seer  of  the  new  covenant  and  author  of  the  Revela- 
tion. It  was  a function  rather  than  an  office. 

1 Acts  11  : 28  ; 21  : 19  ; 13  : 1 ; 15  : 32. 


§ 61.  PRESBYTERS  OR  BISHOPS. 


491 


3.  Evangelists,  itinerant  preachers,  delegates,  and  fellow- 
laborers  of  the  apostles — such  men  as  Mark,  Luke,  Timothy, 
Titus,  Silas,  Epaphras,  Trophimus,  and  Apollos.1  They  may 
be  compared  to  modern  missionaries.  They  were  apostolic 
commissioners  for  a special  work.  “ It  is  the  conception  of  a 
later  age  which  represents  Timothy  as  bishop  of  Ephesus,  and 
Titus  as  bishop  of  Crete.  St.  Paul’s  own  language  implies  that 
the  position  which  they  held  was  temporary.  In  both  cases 
their  term  of  office  is  drawing  to  a close  when  the  apostle 
writes.”  * 

§ 61.  Presbyters  or  Bishops.  The  Angels  of  the  Seven 
Churches.  James  of  Jerusalem. 

We  proceed  to  the  officers  of  local  congregations  who  were 
charged  with  carrying  forward  in  particular  places  the  work 
begun  by  the  apostles  and  their  delegates.  These  were  of  two 
kinds,  Presbyters  or  Bishops,  and  Deacons  or  Helpers.  They 
multiplied  in  proportion  as  Christianity  extended,  while  the 
number  of  the  apostles  diminished  by  death,  and  could,  in  the 
nature  of  the  case,  not  be  filled  up  by  witnesses  of  the  life  and 
resurrection  of  Christ.  The  extraordinary  officers  were  neces- 
sary for  the  founding  and  being  of  the  church,  the  ordinary 
officers  for  its  preservation  and  well-being. 

The  terms  Presbyter  (or  Elder) 3 and  Bishop  (or  Overseer, 

1 1 Tim.  1:3;  3 : 14;  2 Tim.  4 : 9,  21  ; Tit.  1 : 5 ; 3 : 12;  1 Pet.  5 : 12. 
Calvin  takes  the  same  view  of  the  Evangelists,  Inst.  IV.,  ch.  3,  § 4 : 44  Per 
Evangelistas  eos  intelligo,  qui  quum  dignitate  esscnt  Apostolis  minor  es,  officio 
tamen  proximi  erant,  adeoque  vices  eorum  gei'ebant.  Quales  fuerunt,  Lucas, 
Timotlieus , Titus , et  reliqui  similes : ac  fortassis  etiam  septuaginta  discipvli , 
quos  secundo  ab  Apostolis  loco  Christus  designavit  (Luc.  10.1).” 

5 Lightfoot,  p.  197.  Other  Episcopal  writers,  accepting  the  later  tradition 
(Euseb.,  II.  E.  III.  4;  Const.  Apost..  VII.  46),  regard  Timothy  and  Titus 
as  apostolic  types  of  diocesan  bishops.  So  Bishop  Chr.  Wordsworth : A 
Church  History  to  the  Council  of  Nicoea  (1880,  p.  42),  and  the  writer  of  the 
article  “Bishop,”  in  Smith  and  Cheetham  (I.  211). 

3 The  irpe(rf}uT€poi  correspond  to  the  Jewish  zekenim  ; see  above,  §51.  It 
was  originally  a term  of  age,  and  then  of  dignity,  like  Senators , Senatus , 
yepovala  (comp,  our  44  Senate,”  “Aldermen”),  for  the  members  of  the  govern- 


492 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Superintendent) 1 denote  in  the  New  Testament  one  and  the 
same  office,  with  this  difference  only,  that  the  first  is  borrowed 
from  the  Synagogue,  the  second  from  the  Greek  communities ; 
and  that  the  one  signifies  the  dignity,  the  other  the  duty.2 

1.  The  identity  of  these  officers  is  very  evident  from  the  fol- 
lowing facts : 


ing  body  of  a municipality  or  state.  Aged  and  experienced  men  were  gener- 
ally chosen  for  office,  but  not  without  exceptions.  Timothy  was  compara- 
tively young  when  he  was  ordained  (1  Tim.  4 : 12).  The  Roman  Senate 
consisted  originally  of  venerable  men,  but  after  the  time  of  Augustus  the 
cetas  senatoria  was  reduced  to  twenty -five.  The  use  of  presbyter  in  the  sense 
of  sacerdos , Upevs,  priest , dates  from  the  time  of  Cyprian,  and  became  com- 
mon from  the  fifth  century  onward  to  the  Reformation.  In  the  New  Test, 
there  is  no  trace  of  any  special  sacerdotal  office  or  caste. 

1 The  term  imaKonos  occurs  about  a dozen  times  in  the  Septuagint  for 
various  Hebrew  words  meaning  “inspector,”  “taskmaster,”  “captain,” 
“president”  (see  Trommius,  Concord.  Gr.  LXX.  Interpr.  sub  verbo,  and  also 
sub  iiruTKoirfi  and  iirio-KOTrew).  It  was  used  in  Egypt  of  the  officers  of  a temple, 
in  Greece  of  overseers  or  guardians  in  general,  or  of  municipal  and  financial 
officers.  In  Athens  the  commissioners  to  regulate  colonies  and  subject  states 
were  called  iiriffKovoi.  The  Spartans  sent  eiri/xeAriTai  in  the  same  capacity. 
The  term  was  not  only  applied  to  permanent  officers,  but  also  to  the  govern- 
ing body,  or  a committee  of  the  governing  body.  The  feminine  iniaKoirv  is 
not  classical,  but  passed  from  the  Sept,  into  the  Greek  Test.  (Acts  1 : 20  ; 
1 Tim.  3:1)  and  patristic  usage  with  the  meaning  : the  work  or  office  of  a 
bishop  (inspection  visitatio).  See  Lightfoot,  Philippians , 93  sqq.,  Gebhardtand 
Harnack,  Patr.  Apost.  Op.  p.  5 ; Hatch,  l.  c.,  37 sqq.,  and  Hatch,  art.  “Priest” 
in  Smith  and  Cheetham,  II.  1698  sqq. 

The  distinction  between  them,  as  two  separate  orders  of  ministers,  dates 
from  the  second  century,  and  is  made  a dogma  in  the  Greek  and  Roman 
churches.  The  Council  of  Trent  (Sess.  XXIII.,  cap.  4,  and  can.  vii.  de  Sacra- 
mento ordinis)  declares  bishops  to  be  successors  of  the  apostles,  and  pro- 
nounces the  anathema  on  those  who  affirm  ‘ ‘ that  bishops  are  not  superior  to 
oriests  (presbyters).”  Yet  there  are  Roman  Catholic  historians  who  are 
learned  and  candid  enough  to  admit  the  original  identity.  So  Probst,  Sacra- 
mentey  p.  215;  Dollinger  (before  his  secession),  First  Age  of  the  Church , 
Engl,  transl.  II.  Ill  ; and  Kraus,  Real-  Encykl.  der  christl.  Alterthumer  (1880), 
I.  62.  Kraus  says  : “ Anfangs  werden  heide  Termini  [inlo-Koiros  and  Trpeo-fSvrcpos] 
vielfach  mit  demselben  Werthe  angewendet  (Act  20:17,  28;  Tit.  1:5;  Clem. 
ad  Cor.  I.  42,  44,  47).  Noch  im  zweiten  Jahrh.  findet  man  die  Bischofe  auch 
TrpecrfiuTepoi  genannt,  nicht  aher  umgekehrt.  Sofort  fixirt  sich  dann  der  Sprach- 
gebrauch : der  B.  ist  der  Vorsteher  der  irapoiKla , SioisTjais,  als  Nachfolger  der 
Apostel ; Him  unterstehen  Volk  und  Geistlichkeit ; ilim  wohnt  die  Fulle  der 
priester lichen  Gewalt  inne.”  The  sacerdotal  idea,  however,  does  not  synchro- 
nize with  the  elevation  of  the  episcopate,  but  came  in  a little  later. 


§ 61.  PRESBYTERS  OR  BISHOPS. 


493 


a.  They  appear  always  as  a plurality  or  as  a college  in  one 
and  the  same  congregation,  even  in  smaller  cities,  as  Philippi.1 

b.  The  same  officers  of  the  church  of  Ephesus  are  alternately 
called  presbyters 3 and  bishops. 

c.  Paul  sends  greetings  to  the  “ bishops  ” and  “ deacons  ” of 
Philippi,  but  omits  the  presbyters  because  they  were  included 
in  the  first  term ; as  also  the  plural  indicates.3 

d.  In  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  where  Paul  intends  to  give  the 
qualifications  for  all  church  officers,  he  again  mentions  only 
two,  bishops  and  deacons,  but  uses  the  term  presbyter  after- 
wards for  bishop. 4 

Peter  urges  the  “ presbyters  ” to  “ tend  the  flock  of  God,” 
and  to  “ fulfil  the  office  of  bishops  ” with  disinterested  devotion 
and  without  “ lording  it  over  the  charge  allotted  to  them.” 6 

e.  The  interchange  of  terms  continued  in  use  to  the  close  of 
the  first  century,  as  is  evident  from  the  Epistle  of  Clement  of 
Pome  (about  95),  and  the  Didaclie , and  still  lingered  towards 
the  close  of  the  second.6 

1 The  only  apparent  exceptions  are  1 Tim.  3:2;  Tit.  1 : 7,  but  there  the 
definite  article  before  iirurKoiros  is  generic. 

2 Acts  20  : 17  (presbyters),  28  (bishops).  In  the  English  version  the  argu- 
ment of  the  identity  is  obscured  by  the  exceptional  translation  “overseers,” 
instead  of  the  usual  “bishops.”  The  Revised  Version  of  1881  has  mended 
this  defect  by  adopting  “elders  ” and  “ bishops”  in  the  text,  and  “ presby- 
ters” and  “overseers”  in  the  margin.  The  perversion  of  the  passage,  under 
the  unconscious  influence  of  a later  distinction,  began  with  Irenaeus,  who  says 
{Ado.  Hcer.  III.  14,  2):  “The  bishops  and  presbyters  were  called  together 
{convocatis  episcopis  et  presbyteris)  at  Miletus  from  Ephesus,  and  the  other 
neighboring  cities  {et  a reliquis  proximis  civitatibus).'n  The  last  addition  was 
necessary  to  justify  the  plurality  of  bishops  as  distinct  from  presbyters.  The 
latter  alone  are  mentioned,  Acts  20  : 17. 

3 Phil.  1:1:  tt acriv  rois  ayiois  . . . <rvv  iirurKoTrois  Kal  StaKovois. 

4 1 Tim.  3 : 1-13  ; 5 : 17-19  ; Tit.  1 : 5-7. 

6 1 Pet.  5:1,2:  irpefffiuTfpovs  . . . irapaKaXS)  6 <r  vvir  pe  o fivr  € p o s 
iroifiauaTe  r b ev  vu?v  troiibLviou  rov  &eoD,  e ir  i <r  k o it  o v vr  e s . . . The  last  word 
is  omitted  by  & and  B.  Tischendorf  (8th  ed.),  Westcott  and  Hort,  but  iroipavaTc 
implies  the  episcopal  function,  the  oversight  of  the  flock. 

6 Clem.,  Ad  Cor.  c.  42  (“  bishops  and  deacons”),  c.  44  (“  bishopric  . . . the 
presbyters”).  The  Didache  (ch.  15)  knows  only  bishops  and  deacons,  as  local 
officers,  the  former  being  identical  with  presbyters.  Irenaeus  still  occasionally 
calls  the  bishops  “ presbyters,”  and  uses  succcssiones  episcoporum  and  suc- 
cessiones  presbyterorum  synonymously,  but  he  evidently  recognized  the  episco- 
pal constitution.  The  higher  office  includes  the  lower,  but  not  conversely. 


494 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


With  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  from  Ignatius 
onward,  the  two  terms  are  distinguished  and  designate  two 
offices ; the  bishop  being  regarded  first  as  the  head  of  a congre- 
gation surrounded  by  a council  of  presbyters,  and  afterwards  as 
the  head  of  a diocese  and  successor  of  the  apostles.  The  episco- 
pate grew  out  of  the  presidency  of  the  presbytery,  or,  as  Bishop 
Lightfoot  well  expresses  it : “ The  episcopate  was  formed,  not 
out  of  the  apostolic  order  by  localization,  but  out  of  the  presby- 
teral  by  elevation  ; and  the  title,  which  originally  was  common  to 
all,  came  at  length  to  be  appropriated  to  the  chief  among  them.”  1 
Nevertheless,  a recollection  of  the  original  identity  was  pre- 
served by  the  best  biblical  scholars  among  the  fathers,  such  as 
Jerome  (who  taught  that  the  episcopate  rose  from  the  presby- 
terate  as  a safeguard  against  schism),  Chrysostom,  and  Theo- 
doret.2 

The  reason  why  the  title  bishop  (and  not  presbyter)  was  given 
afterwards  to  the  superior  officer,  may  be  explained  from  the 

1 L.  c. , p.  194.  He  illustrates  this  usage  by  a parallel  instance  from  the 
Athenian  institutions.  Neander  has  the  same  view  of  the  origin  of  the  epis- 
copate. It  dates,  in  fact,  from  Jerome. 

2 See  the  patristic  quotations  in  my  Hist,  of  the  Ap.  Gh.  pp.  524  sq.  Even 
Pope  Urban  II.  (a.d.  1091)  says  that  the  primitive  church  knew  only  two 
orders,  the  deaconate  and  the  presbyterate.  The  original  identity  of  presby- 
ter and  bishop  is  not  only  insisted  on  by  Presbyterians,  Lutherans,  and  Con- 
gregationalists,  but  freely  conceded  also  by  Episcopal  commentators,  as  Whitby, 
Bloomfield,  Conybeare  and  Howson,  Alford,  Ellicott,  Lightfoot,  Stanley,  and 
others.  It  is  also  conceded  by  purely  critical  historians,  as  Rothe,  Ritschl, 
Baur  {K.  Gesch.  I.  270),  and  Renan  {Les  tivangiles,  p.  332).  Renan  calls  the 
history  of  the  ecclesiastical  hierarchy  the  history  of  a triple  abdication  : first 
the  community  of  believers  committed  their  power  to  the  presbyters,  then  the 
corps  of  presbyters  abdicated  to  the  bishop,  and,  last,  the  bishops  to  the  pope 
(in  the  Vatican  council).  “ La  creation  de  Vepiscopat  est  Voeuvre  du  lle  siecle. 
Lj  absorption  de  VEglise  par  les  ‘ presbyteri'  est  un  fait  accompli  avant  la  fin  du 
premier.  Dans  Vepitre  de  Clement  Domain,  etc.,  ce  n'est  pas  encore  Vepiscopat , 
c'est  le  presbyter  at  qui  est  en  cause.  On  n'y  trouve  pas  trace  d'un  ‘ presbyter os' 
superieur  aux  autres  et  devant  detroner  les  autres.  Mais  Vauteur  pi-oclame 
hautement  que  le  presbyterat , le  derge , est  anterieur  au  peuple.  ” Comp,  also 
Renan’s  Saint  Paul , 238  sq.,  and  D figlise  Ghretienne , ch.  VI.  p.  85  sqq.  This 
subject  then  may  be  regarded  as  finally  settled  among  scholars.  At  the  same 
time  it  should  in  all  fairness  be  admitted  that  the  tendency  toward  an  epis- 
copal concentration  of  presbyteral  power  may  be  traced  to  the  close  of  the 
apostolic  age. 


§ 61.  PRESBYTERS  OR  BISHOPS. 


495 


fact  that  it  signified,  according  to  monumental  inscriptions  re- 
cently discovered,  financial  officers  of  the  temples,  and  that  the 
bishops  had  the  charge  of  all  the  funds  of  the  churches,  which 
were  largely  charitable  institutions  for  the  support  of  widows 
and  orphans,  strangers  and  travellers,  aged  and  infirm  people  in 
an  age  of  extreme  riches  and  extreme  poverty.1 2 

2.  The  origin  of  the  presbytero-episcopal  office  is  not  re- 
corded in  the  New  Testament,  but  when  it  is  first  mentioned  in 
the  congregation  at  Jerusalem,  a.d.  44,  it  appears  already  as  a 
settled  institution.’  As  every  Jewish  synagogue  was  ruled  by 
elders,  it  was  very  natural  that  every  Jewish  Christian  congrega- 
tion should  at  once  adopt  this  form  of  government ; this  may  be 
the  reason  why  the  writer  of  the  Acts  finds  it  unnecessary  to 
give  an  account  of  the  origin ; while  he  reports  the  origin  of 
the  deaconate  which  arose  from  a special  emergency  and  had  no 
precise  analogy  in  the  organization  of  the  synagogue.  The 
Gentile  churches  followed  the  example,  choosing  the  already 
familiar  term  bishop.  The  first  thing  which  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas did  after  preaching  the  gospel  in  Asia  Minor  was  to  organ- 
ize churches  by  the  appointment  of  elders.3 

3.  The  office  of  the  presbyter-bishops  was  to  teach  and  to 
rule  the  particular  congregation  committed  to  their  charge. 
They  were  the  regular  “ pastors  and  teachers.” 4 To  them  be- 

1 See  Hatch,  Organiz.  Lect.  II.  and  IV.,  and  his  art.  “ Priest  ” in  Smith  and 
Cheetham,  II.  1700.  Hatch  makes  large  use  of  the  inscriptions  found  at 
Salkhad,  in  the  Hauran,  at  Thera,  and  elsewhere.  He  advances  the  new 
theory  that  the  bishops  were  originally  a higher  order  of  deacons  and  supreme 
almoners  of  the  sovereign  congregation,  while  the  presbyters  had  charge  of 
the  discipline.  He  admits  that  bishops  and  presbyters  were  equals  in  rank, 
and  their  names  interchangeable,  but  that  their  relations  differed  in  different 
churches  during  the  first  two  centuries,  and  that  the  chief  function  of  the 
bishop  originally  was  the  care  and  disposition  of  the  charitable  funds.  Hence 
the  stress  laid  by  Paul  on  the  necessity  of  a bishop  being  d<pi\apyvpos  and 
<pi\6^evos.  In  the  long  series  of  ecclesiastical  canons  and  imperial  edicts,  the 
bishops  are  represented  especially  in  the  light  of  trustees  of  church  property. 

2 Acts  11  : 30,  at  the  time  of  the  famine  when  the  church  of  Antioch  sent  a 
collection  to  the  elders  for  their  brethren  in  Judaea. 

3 Acts  14  : 23  ; comp.  Tit.  1 : 5. 

4 ir oi/xfvcs  Kail  di$d<rica\oi,  Eph.  4 : 11. 


496 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


longed  the  direction  of  public  worship,  the  administration  of 
discipline,  the  care  of  souls,  and  the  management  of  church 
property.  They  were  usually  chosen  from  the  first  converts, 
and  appointed  by  the  apostles  or  their  delegates,  with  the  ap- 
proval of  the  congregation,  or  by  the  congregation  itself,  which 
supported  them  by  voluntary  contributions.  They  were  solemnly 
introduced  into  their  office  by  the  apostles  or  by  their  fellow 
presbyters  through  prayers  and  the  laying  on  of  hands.1 

The  presbyters  always  formed  a college  or  corporation,  a 
presbytery  ; as  at  Jerusalem,  at  Ephesus,  at  Philippi,  and  at  the 
ordination  of  Timothy.2  They  no  doubt  maintained  a relation 
of  fraternal  equality.  The  New  Testament  gives  us  no  informa- 
tion about  the  division  of  labor  among  them,  or  the  nature  and 
term  of  a presidency.  It  is  quite  probable  that  the  members  of 
the  presbyteral  college  distributed  the  various  duties  of  their 
office  among  themselves  according  to  their  respective  talents, 
tastes,  experience,  and  convenience.  Possibly,  too,  the  presi- 
dent, whether  temporary  or  permanent,  was  styled  distinctively 
the  bishop ; and  from  this  the  subsequent  separation  of  the 
episcopate  from  the  presbyterate  may  easily  have  arisen.  But 
so  long  as  the  general  government  of  the  church  was  in  the 
hands  of  the  apostles  and  their  delegates,  the  bishops  were 
limited  in  their  jurisdiction  either  to  one  congregation  or  to  a 
small  circle  of  congregations. 

The  distinction  of  “ teaching  presbyters  ” or  ministers  proper, 
and  “ ruling  presbyters  ” or  lay-elders,  is  a convenient  arrange- 
ment of  Reformed  churches,  but  can  hardly  claim  apostolic 
sanction,  since  the  one  passage  on  which  it  rests  only  speaks  of 
two  functions  in  the  same  office.3  Whatever  may  have  been 
the  distribution  and  rotation  of  duties,  Paul  expressly  mentions 

: Acts  14 : 23  ; Tit.  1 : 5 ; 1 Tim.  5 : 22  ; 4 : 14  ; 2 Tim.  1:6.  On  the  elec- 
tion, ordination  and  support  of  ministers,  see  my  Hist.  Ap.  Ch.  pp.  500-506. 

2 Acts  11  : 30;  14  : 23  ; 15  : 2,  4,  6,  23  ; 16:4;  20:17,28;  21  : 18  ; PhiL  1:1; 
1 Tim.  4 : 14  ; James  5:14;  1 Pet.  5 : 1. 

3 1 Tim.  5 : 17  : “ Let  the  elders  that  rule  well  (ol  ica\ws  irpoea-rures 

irperflurepoi ) be  counted  of  double  honor  (StvArjs  especially  those  who 

labor  in  the  word  and  in  teaching  {iv  \6y(p  ical  5i5a<r/caAja). ” Some  commen- 


§ 01.  PRESBYTERS  OR  BISHOPS. 


497 


ability  to  teach  among  the  regular  requisites  for  the  episcopal 
or  presbyteral  office.1 

4.  The  angels  of  the  Seven  Churches  in  Asia  Minor  must 
be  regarded  as  identical  with  the  presbyter-bishops  or  local  pas- 
tors. They  represent  the  presiding  presbyters,  or  the  corps  of 
regular  officers,  as  the  responsible  messengers  of  God  to  the 
congregation.2  At  the  death  of  Paul  and  Peter,  under  Nero, 
the  congregations  were  ruled  by  a college  of  elders,  and  if  the 
Apocalypse,  as  the  majority  of  critical  commentators  now  hold, 

tators  emphasize  tea Aws,  some  refer  the  “ double  honor”  to  higher  rank  and 
position,  others  to  better  remuneration,  still  others  to  both. 

1 1 Tim.  3:2:  44  The  bishop  must  be  ...  . apt  to  teach  (SiScuctik^).”  The 
same  is  implied  in  Tit.  1:9;  Acts  20  : 28  ; and  Heb.  13  : 17.  Lightfoot  takes 
the  right  view  (p.  192) : “ Though  government  was  probably  the  first  concep- 
tion of  the  office,  yet  the  work  of  teaching  must  have  fallen  to  the  presbyters 
from  the  very  first  and  have  assumed  greater  prominence  as  time  went  on.” 
On  the  question  of  teaching  and  ruling  elders,  compare,  besides  other  treatises, 
Peter  Colin  Campbell : The  Theory  of  Ruling  Eldership  (Edinb.  and  London, 
1866),  and  two  able  articles  by  Dr.  R.  D.  Hitchcock  and  Dr.  E.  F.  Hatfield  (both 
Presbyterians)  in  the  4 4 American  Presbyterian  Review  ” for  April  and  October, 
1868.  All  these  writers  dissent  from  Calvin’s  interpretation  of  1 Tim.  5 : 17, 
as  teaching  two  kinds  of  presbyters  : (1)  those  who  both  taught  and  ruled,  and 
(2)  those  who  ruled  only  ; but  Campbell  pleads  from  1 Cor.  12  : 28  ; Rom. 
12:8;  and  Acts  15  : 22,  25  for  what  he  calls  “ Lay  Assessors.”  Dr.  Hitchcock 
holds  that  the  primitive  presbyters  were  empowered  and  expected  both  to 
teach  and  to  rule.  Dr.  Hatfield  tries  to  prove  that  the  Christian  presbyters, 
like  the  Jewish  elders,  were  only  to  rule  ; the  office  of  teaching  having  been 
committed  to  the  apostles,  evangelists,  and  other  missionaries.  The  last  was 
also  the  view  of  Dr.  Thornwell,  of  South  Carolina  (on  Ruling  Elders ),  and  is 
advocated  in  a modified  form  by  an  Oxford  scholar  of  great  ability,  Vice-Prin- 
cipal Hatch  (l.c.  Lecture  III.  pp.  35  sqq.,  and  art.  “Priest”  in  Smith  and 
Cheetham,  II.  1700).  He  holds  that  the  Christian  presbyters,  like  the  Jewish, 
were  at  first  chiefly  officers  of  discipline , not  of  worship,  and  that  the  fitness 
for  teaching  and  soundness  in  the  faith  were  altogether  subordinate  to  the 
moral  qualities  which  are  necessary  to  a governor.  He  also  remarks  (p.  1707) 
that  neither  Clement  nor  Ignatius  makes  any  mention  of  presbyters  in  connec- 
tion with  teaching,  and  that  teaching  was  a delegated  function  committed  to 
the  wiser  presbyters. 

2 Other  interpretations  of  the  apocalyptic  angels  : 1.  Heavenly  messengers, 
guardian  angels  of  the  several  churches.  Origen.  Jerome,  De  Wette,  Alford, 
Bishop  Lightfoot.  2.  Deputies  or  clerks  of  the  churches,  corresponding  to 
the  shelichai  of  the  synagogues.  Vitringa,  John  Lightfoot,  Bengel,  Winer. 
3.  Figurative  personifications  of  the  churches.  Arethas,  Salmasius.  4. 
Bishops  proper.  See  my  Hist,  of  the  Ap  Oh.  pp.  537  sqq. 


498 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


was  written  before  the  year  70,  there  was  too  little  time  for  a 
radical  change  of  the  organization  from  a republican  to  a mon- 
archical form.  Even  if  we  regard  the  “ angels  ” as  single  per- 
sons, they  were  evidently  confined  to  a single  church,  and  sub- 
ject to  St.  John;  hence,  not  successors  of  the  apostles,  as  the 
latter  diocesan  bishops  claim  to  be.  The  most  that  can  be  said 
is  that  the  angels  were  congregational,  as  distinct  from  diocesan 
bishops,  and  mark  one  step  from  the  primitive  presbyters  to  the 
Ignatian  bishops,  who  were  likewise  congregational  officers,  hut 
in  a monarchical  sense  as  the  heads  of  the  presbytery,  bearing  a 
patriarchal  relation  to  the  congregation  and  being  eminently 
responsible  for  its  spiritual  condition.1 

5.  The  nearest  approach  to  the  idea  of  the  ancient  catholic 
episcopate  may  be  found  in  the  unique  position  of  James, 
the  Brother  of  the  Lord.  Unlike  the  apostles,  he  confined  his 
labors  to  the  mother  church  of  Jerusalem.  In  the  Jewish 
Christian  traditions  of  the  second  century  he  appears  both  as 
bishop  and  pope  of  the  church  universal.5  But  in  fact  he  was 
only  'primus  inter  pares.  In  his  last  visit  to  Jerusalem,  Paul 
was  received  by  the  body  of  the  presbyters,  and  to  them  he 
gave  an  account  of  his  missionary  labors.3  Moreover,  this  au- 
thority of  James,  who  was  not  an  apostle,  was  exceptional  and 
due  chiefly  to  his  close  relationship  with  the  Lord,  and  his 
personal  sanctity,  which  won  the  respect  even  of  the  uncon- 
verted Jews. 

The  institution  of  episcopacy  proper  cannot  be  traced  to  the 
apostolic  age,  so  far  as  documentary  evidence  goes,  but  is  very 
apparent  and  well-nigh  universal  about  the  middle  of  the  sec- 
ond century.  Its  origin  and  growth  will  claim  our  attention 
in  the  next  period. 

1 Rothe,  Bunsen,  Thiersch,  and  Bishop  Lightfoofc  trace  the  institution  of 
episcopacy  to  the  Gentile  churches  in  Asia  Minor,  and  claim  for  it  some  sanc- 
tion of  the  surviving  apostle  John  during  the  mysterious  period  between  a.d. 
70  and  100.  Neander,  Baur,  and  Ritschl  opposed  Rothe's  theory  (which  cre- 
ated considerable  sensation  in  learned  circles  at  the  time).  Rothe  was  not  an 
Episcopalian,  but  regarded  episcopacy  as  a temporary  historical  necessity  in 
the  ancient  church. 

* See  § 27,  pp.  264  sqq.  3 Acts  21  : 18  ; comp,  11  : 30  ; 12  : 17  ; and  ch.  16. 


§ 62.  DEACONS  AND  DEACONESSES. 


499 


§ 62.  Deacons  and  Deaconesses. 

Deacons,1 *  or  helpers,  appear  first  in  the  church  of  Jerusalem, 
seven  in  number.  The  author  of  the  Acts  (ch.  6)  gives  us  an 
account  of  the  origin  of  this  office,  which  is  mentioned  before 
that  of  the  presbyters.  It  had  a precedent  in  the  officers  of  the 
synagogue  who  had  charge  of  the  collection  and  distribution  of 
alms.’  It  was  the  first  relief  of  the  heavy  burden  that  rested 
on  the  shoulders  of  the  apostles,  who  wished  to  devote  them- 
selves exclusively  to  prayer  and  the  ministry  of  the  word.  It 
was  occasioned  by  a complaint  of  the  Hellenistic  Christians 
against  the  Hebrew  or  Palestinian  brethren,  that  their  widows 
were  neglected  in  the  daily  distribution  of  food  (and  perhaps 
money).  In  the  exercise  of  a truly  fraternal  spirit  the  congrega- 
tion elected  seven  Hellenists  instead  of  Hebrews,  if  we  are  to 
judge  from  their  Greek  names,  although  they  were  not  uncom- 
mon among  the  Jews  in  that  age.  After  the  popular  election 
they  were  ordained  by  the  apostles. 

The  example  of  the  mother  church  was  followed  in  all  other 
congregations,  though  without  particular  regard  to  the  number. 
The  church  of  Rome,  however,  perpetuated  even  the  number 
seven  for  several  generations.3  In  Philippi  the  deacons  took 
their  rank  after  the  presbyters,  and  are  addressed  with  them  in 
Paul’s  Epistle. 

The  office  of  these  deacons,  according  to  the  narrative  in 
Acts,  was  to  minister  at  the  table  in  the  daily  love-feasts  and  to 
attend  to  the  wants  of  the  poor  and  the  sick.  The  primitive 
churches  were  charitable  societies,  taking  care  of  the  widows 

1 Stditovos,  diaconus,  in  later  usage  also  Sidfcotv,  diacones  (in  Cyprian’s  works 
and  in  synodical  decrees). 

4 Lightfoot  (Hor.  Hebr.  in  Act.  6 : 3)  says  : “ Tralatum  erat  officium  Dia- 
conatus  ...  in  Ecclesiam  Evangelicam  ex  Judaica.  Erant  enim  in  unaquaque 
Synagoga  ‘3,  tres  DiaMni  quibns  incubuit  ista  cura  ( pauperum ).” 

3 According  to  a letter  of  Cornelius,  the  Roman  Church  in  251  had  forty-six 
presbyters,  but  only  seven  deacons,  Euseb.,  H.  E,  YI.  43.  The  places  were 
filled  by  sw&-deacons.  In  Constantinople,  Justinian  authorized  the  appoint- 
ment of  a hundred  deacons. 


500 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


and  orphans,  dispensing  hospitality  to  strangers,  and  relieving 
the  needs  of  the  poor.  The  presbyters  were  the  custodians, 
the  deacons  the  collectors  and  distributors,  of  the  charitable 
funds.  To  this  work  a kind  of  pastoral  care  of  souls  very 
naturally  attached  itself,  since  poverty  and  sickness  afford  the 
best  occasions  and  the  most  urgent  demand  for  edifying  instruc- 
tion and  consolation.  Hence,  living  faith  and  exemplary  con- 
duct were  necessary  qualifications  for  the  office  of  deacon.1 

Two  of  the  Jerusalem  deacons,  Stephen  and  Philip,  labored 
also  as  preachers  and  evangelists,  but  in  the  exercise  of  a per- 
sonal gift  rather  than  of  official  duty. 

In  post-apostolic  times,  when  the  bishop  was  raised  above  the 
presbyter  and  the  presbyter  became  priest,  the  deacon  was  re- 
garded as  Levite,  and  his  primary  function  of  care  of  the  poor 
was  lost  in  the  function  of  assisting  the  priest  in  the  sub- 
ordinate parts  of  public  worship  and  the  administration  of  the 
sacraments.  The  diaconate  became  the  first  of  the  three  or- 
ders of  the  ministry  and  a stepping-stone  to  the  priesthood. 
At  the  same  time  the  deacon,  by  his  intimacy  with  the  bishop 
as  his  agent  and  messenger,  acquired  an  advantage  over  the 
priest. 

Deaconesses,2  or  female  helpers,  had  a similar  charge  of  the 
poor  and  sick  in  the  female  portion  of  the  church.  This  office 
was  the  more  needful  on  account  of  the  rigid  separation  of  the 
sexes  at  that  day,  especially  among  the  Greeks  and  Orientals. 
It  opened  to  pious  women  and  virgins,  and  chiefly  to  widows,  a 
most  suitable  field  for  the  regular  official  exercise  of  their  pe- 
culiar gifts  of  self-denying  charity  and  devotion  to  the  welfare 
of  the  church.  Through  it  they  could  carry  the  light  and  com- 
fort of  the  gospel  into  the  most  private  and  delicate  relations  of 
domestic  life,  without  at  all  overstepping  their  natural  sphere. 
Paul  mentions  Phoebe  as  a deaconess  of  the  church  of  Cenchreae, 
the  port  of  Corinth,  and  it  is  more  than  probable  that  Prisca 
(Priscilla),  Mary,  Tryphaena,  Trypliosa,  and  Persis,  whom  he 

1 Acts  6 : 3 ; 1 Tim.  3 : 8 sqq. 

8 tj  Sidnovos,  afterwards  also  tiiaicivKTcra,  diaconissa,  diacona. 


§ 63.  CHURCH  DISCIPLINE. 


501 


commends  for  their  labor  in  the  Lord,  served  in  the  same 
capacity  at  Iiome.1 

The  deaconesses  were  usually  chosen  from  elderly  widows. 
In  the  Eastern  churches  the  office  continued  to  the  end  of  the 
twelfth  century.3 


§ 63.  Church  Discipline. 

Holiness,  like  unity  and  catholicity  or  universality,  is  an  es- 
sential mark  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  who  is  himself  the  one, 
holy  Saviour  of  all  men ; but  it  has  never  yet  been  perfectly 
actualized  in  her  membership  on  earth,  and  is  subject  to  gradual 
growth  with  many  obstructions  and  lapses.  The  church  mili- 
tant, as  a body,  like  every  individual  Christian,  has  to  pass 
through  a long  process  of  sanctification,  which  cannot  be  com- 
plete till  the  second  coming  of  the  Lord. 

Even  the  apostles,  far  as  they  tower  above  ordinary  Chris- 
tians, and  infallible  as  they  are  in  giving  all  the  instruction 
necessary  to  salvation,  never  during  their  earthly  life  claimed 
sinless  perfection  of  character,  but  felt  themselves  oppressed 
with  manifold  infirmities,  and  in  constant  need  of  forgiveness 
and  purification. 

Still  less  can  we  expect  perfect  moral  purity  in  their  churches. 
In  fact,  all  the  Epistles  of  the  New  Testament  contain  exhorta- 
tions to  progress  in  virtue  and  piety,  warnings  against  unfaith- 
fulness and  apostasy,  and  reproofs  respecting  corrupt  practices 
among  the  believers.  The  old  leaven  of  Judaism  and  heathen- 
ism could  not  be  purged  away  at  once,  and  to  many  of  the 
blackest  sins  the  converts  were  for  the  first  time  fully  exposed 

1 Rom.  16:1,  where  Phoebe  is  called  (rf)  SiAkovos  t rjs  ixtcXyalas  T7/s  tv  Keyxpccus. 
Comp.  16  : 3,  6,  12.  On  the  question  whether  the  widows  mentioned  1 Tim. 
3 : 11  ; 5 : 9-15,  were  deaconesses,  see  my  Hist,  of  the  Ap.  C%.,  p.  536. 

2 In  the  Roman  Church,  sisterhoods  for  charitable  work  have  supplanted 
congregational  deaconesses  ; and  similar  institutions  (without  the  vow  of  celi* 
bacy)  were  established  among  the  Moravians,  in  the  Lutheran,  Episcopal,  and 
other  churches.  The  Roman  Catholic  Sisters  of  Charity,  and  the  Evangelical 
Deaconesses  of  Kaiserswerth  are  worthy  of  special  honor.  See  art.  Deacon , 
Deaconess , and  Deaconesses  in  SchafFs  ltd.  Cyclop .,  vol.  I.  (1882),  pp.  613  sqq. 


502 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


after  their  regeneration  by  water  and  the  Spirit.  In  the  churches 
of  Galatia  many  fell  back  from  grace  and  from  the  freedom  of 
the  gospel  to  the  legal  bondage  of  Judaism  and  the  “ rudiments 
of  the  world.”  In  the  church  of  Corinth,  Paul  had  to  rebuke  the 
carnal  spirit  of  sect,  the  morbid  desire  for  wisdom,  participation 
in  the  idolatrous  feasts  of  the  heathen,  the  tendency  to  unclean- 
ness, and  a scandalous  profanation  of  the  holy  Supper  or  the 
love-feasts  connected  with  it.  Most  of  the  churches  of  Asia 
Minor,  according  to  the  Epistles  of  Paul  and  the  Apocalypse, 
were  so  infected  with  theoretical  errors  or  practical  abuses,  as  to 
call  for  the  earnest  warnings  and  reproofs  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
through  the  apostles.1 

These  facts  show  how  needful  discipline  is,  both  for  the 
church  herself  and  for  the  offenders.  For  the  church  it  is  a 
process  of  self -purification,  and  the  assertion  of  the  holiness  and 
moral  dignity  which  essentially  belong  to  her.  To  the  offender 
it  is  at  once  a merited  punishment  and  a means  of  repentance 
and  reform.  For  the  ultimate  end  of  the  agency  of  Christ 
and  his  church  is  the  salvation  of  souls;  and  Paul  styles  the 
severest  form  of  church  discipline  the  delivering  of  the  back- 
slider “ to  Satan  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh,  that  the  spirit 
may  be  saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus.” 2 

The  means  of  discipline  are  of  various  degrees  of  severity ; 
first,  private  admonition,  then  public  correction,  and,  finally, 
when  these  prove  fruitless,  excommunication,  or  temporary  ex- 
clusion from  all  the  means  of  grace  and  from  Christian  inter- 
course.3 Upon  sincere  repentance,  the  fallen  one  is  restored  to 
the  communion  of  the  church.  The  act  of  discipline  is  that  of 
the  whole  congregation  in  the  name  of  Christ ; and  Paul  him- 
self, though  personally  absent,  excommunicated  the  fornicator 
at  Corinth  with  the  concurrence  of  the  congregation,  and  as 
being  in  spirit  united  with  it.  In  one  of  the  only  two  passages 
where  our  Lord  uses  the  term  ecclesia , he  speaks  of  it  as  a court 
which,  like  the  Jewish  synagogue,  has  authority  to  decide  dis* 

1 Comp.  § 50,  p.  450.  9 1 Cor.  5 : 5. 

3 Comp.  Matt.  18  : 15-18  ; Tit.  3 : 10  ; 1 Cor.  5 : 5. 


§ 64.  TIIE  COUNCIL  AT  JERUSALEM. 


503 


putes  and  to  exercise  discipline.1  In  the  synagogue,  the  college 
of  presbyters  formed  the  local  court  for  judicial  as  well  as  ad- 
ministrative purposes,  but  acted  in  the  name  of  the  whole 
congregation. 

The  two  severest  cases  of  discipline  in  the  apostolic  church 
were  the  fearful  punishment  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira  by  Peter 
for  falsehood  and  hypocrisy  in  the  church  of  Jerusalem  in  the 
days  of  her  first  love,3  and  the  excommunication  of  a member 
of  the  Corinthian  congregation  by  Paul  for  adultery  and  incest.3 
The  latter  case  affords  also  an  instance  of  restoration.4 

§ 64.  The  Council  at  Jerusalem* 

(Comp.  § 34,  pp.  335  sqq.  and  346  sq.) 

The  most  complete  outward  representation  of  the  apostolic 
church  as  a teaching  and  legislative  body  was  the  council  con- 
vened at  Jerusalem  in  the  year  50,  to  decide  as  to  the  authority 
of  the  law  of  Moses,  and  adjust  the  difference  between  Jewish 
and  Gentile  Christianity.6 

We  notice  it  here  simply  in  its  connection  with  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  church. 

It  consisted  not  of  the  apostles  alone,  but  of  apostles,  elders, 
and  brethren.  We  know  that  Peter,  Paul,  John,  Barnabas,  and 
Titus  were  present,  perhaps  all  the  other  apostles.  James — not 
one  of  the  Twelve — presided  as  the  local  bishop,  and  proposed 
the  compromise  which  was  adopted.  The  transactions  were 
public,  before  the  congregation ; the  brethren  took  part  in  the 
deliberations;  there  was  a sharp  discussion,  but  the  spirit  of 
love  prevailed  over  the  pride  of  opinion ; the  apostles  passed 
and  framed  the  decree  not  without,  but  with  the  elders  and 
“ with  the  whole  church ; ” and  sent  the  circular  letter  not  in 
their  own  name  only,  but  also  in  the  name  of  “the  brother 

1 Matt.  18  : 17.  The  words  : li  Tell  it  to  the  church,”  cannot  apply  to  the 
church  universal,  as  iKK\7i<rla  does  in  Matt.  16  : 18. 

2 Acts  5 : 1-10.  3 1 Cor.  5 : 1 sqq. 

4 2 Cor.  2 : 5-10.  * Acts,  ch.  15,  and  Galatians,  ch.  2. 


504 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


elders  ” or  “ elder  brethren  ” to  “ the  brethren  ” of  the  congre- 
gations disturbed  by  the  question  of  circumcision.1 

All  of  which  plainly  proves  the  right  of  Christian  people  to 
take  part  in  some  way  in  the  government  of  the  church,  as  they 
do  in  the  acts  of  worship.  The  spirit  and  practice  of  the  apos- 
tles favored  a certain  kind  of  popular  self-government,  and  the 
harmonious,  fraternal  co-operation  of  the  different  elements  of 
the  church.  It  countenanced  no  abstract  distinction  of  clergy 
and  laity.  All  believers  are  called  to  the  prophetic,  priestly, 
and  kingly  offices  in  Christ.  The  bearers  of  authority  and 
discipline  should  therefore  never  forget  that  their  great  work  is 
to  train  the  governed  to  freedom  and  independence,  and  by  the 
various  spiritual  offices  to  build  them  up  unto  the  unity  of  faith 
and  knowledge,  and  to  the  perfect  manhood  of  Christ. 

The  Greek  and  Roman  churches  gradually  departed  from  the 
apostolic  polity  and  excluded  not  only  the  laity,  but  also  the 
lower  clergy  from  all  participation  in  the  legislative  councils. 

The  conference  of  Jerusalem,  though  not  a binding  precedent, 
is  a significant  example,  giving  the  apostolic  sanction  to  the 
synodical  form  of  government,  in  which  all  classes  of  the  Chris- 
tian community  are  represented  in  the  management  of  public 
affairs  and  in  settling  controversies  respecting  faith  and  disci- 
pline. The  decree  which  it  passed  and  the  pastoral  letter  which 
it  sent,  are  the  first  in  the  long  line  of  decrees  and  canons  and 
encyclicals  which  issued  from  ecclesiastical  authorities.  But  it 
is  significant  that  this  first  decree,  though  adopted  undoubtedly 
under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  wisely  adapted  to 
the  times  and  circumstances  of  the  mixed  churches  of  Jewish 
and  Gentile  converts,  was  after  all  merely  “ a temporary  expe- 
dient for  a temporary  emergency,”  and  cannot  be  quoted  as  a 
precedent  for  infallible  decrees  of  permanent  force.  The  spirit 
of  fraternal  concession  and  harmony  which  dictated  the  Jerusa- 
lem compromise,  is  more  important  than  the  letter  of  the  de- 
cree itself.  The  kingdom  of  Christ  is  not  a dispensation  of  law, 
but  of  spirit  and  of  life. 

1 Acts  15  : 6,  12,  22,  23.  See  Notes. 


§ G4.  THE  COUNCIL  AT  JERUSALEM. 


COG 


Notes. 

I.  There  is  an  interesting  difference  of  reading  in  Acts  15  : 23  (see  the 
critical  editions),  but  it  does  not  affect  the  composition  of  the  confer- 
ence, at  least  as  far  as  the  elders  are  concerned.  The  textus  receptua 
reads  : ol  dnoaroXoi , Kai  ol  Tipeafiorepoi , k a\  o i ddc\<fiol  (N\  H,  L,  P, 
Syr.,  etc.),  “The  apostles,  and  the  elders,  and  the  brethren  send  greet- 
ing unto  the  brethren,”  etc.  So  the  E.  V.,  except  that  it  omits  the 
article  twice.  The  Revised  V.,  following  the  better  attested  reading : ol 
dnoaroXoi , ical  ol  npeirpoTepoi  dbe\(f)oi,  renders  in  the  text : “ The  apostles, 
and  the  elders,  brethren,”  and  in  the  margin : “ The  apostles  and  the 
elder  brethren  ” (omitting  the  comma).  But  it  may  also  be  translated : 
“ The  apostles,  and  brother-elders,”  considering  that  Peter  addresses  the 
elders  as  avpirpeo-pvTcpos,  or  “ fellow-elder  ” (1  Pet.  5 : 1).  The  textus 
rec.  agrees  better  with  ver.  22,  and  the  omission  of  kui  ol  may  possibly 
have  arisen  from  a desire  to  conform  the  text  to  the  later  practice  which 
excluded  the  laity  from  synods,  but  it  is  strongly  supported  by  A,  B, 
C,  D,  the  Vulg.  and  Irenseus,  and  adopted  by  Tischendorf  (ed.  VIII.) 
and  Westcott  and  Hort. 

Bellarmin  and  other  Roman  Catholic  and  certain  Episcopal  divines 
get  over  the  fact  of  the  participation  of  the  elders  and  brethren  in  a 
legislative  council  by  allowing  the  elders  and  brethren  simply  a silent 
consent.  So  Seeker  (as  quoted  by  Bishop  Jacobson,  in  Speaker’s  Com- 
mentary on  Acts  15  : 22) : “ The  apostles  join  the  elders  and  brethren 
with  themselves  . . . not  to  allow  them  equal  authority,  but  merely  to 
express  their  concurrence.”  Very  different  is  the  view  of  Dr.  Plumptre 
on  Acts  15  : 22  : “ The  latter  words  [‘  with  the  whole  church  ’]  are  im- 
portant as  showing  the  position  occupied  by  the  laity.  If  they  con- 
curred in  the  latter,  it  must  have  been  submitted  to  their  approval,  and 
the  right  to  approve  involves  the  power  to  reject  and  probably  to 
modify.”  Bishop  Cotterill  ( Genesis  of  the  Church , p.  379)  expresses  the 
same  view.  “It  was  manifestly,”  he  says,  “a  free  council,  and  not  a 
mere  private  meeting  of  some  office-bearers.  It  was  in  fact  much  what 
the  Agora  was  in  archaic  times,  as  described  in  Homer : in  which  the 
council  of  the  nobles  governed  the  decisions,  but  the  people  were  pres- 
ent and  freely  expressed  their  opinion.  And  it  must  be  remembered 
that  the  power  of  free  speech  in  the  councils  of  the  church  is  the  true 
test  of  the  character  of  these  assemblies.  Free  discussion,  and  arbitrary 
government,  either  by  one  person  or  by  a privileged  class,  have  been 
found,  in  all  ages  and  under  all  polities,  to  be  incompatible  with  each 
other.  Again,  not  only  were  the  multitude  present,  but  we  are  expressly 
told  that  the  whole  church  concurred  in  the  decision  and  in  the  action 
taken  upon  it.” 

EE.  The  authority  of  the  Jerusalem  conference  as  a precedent  for 
regular  legislative  councils  and  synods  has  been  often  overrated.  On 


506 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


the  other  hand,  Canon  Farrar  {Life  and  Work  of  St.  Paul,  I.  431)  greatly 
underrates  it  when  he  says : “It  is  only  by  an  unwarrantable  extension 
of  terms  that  the  meeting  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  can  be  called  a 
* council,’  and  the  word  connotes  a totally  different  order  of  conceptions 
to  those  that  were  prevalent  at  that  early  time.  The  so-called  Council 
of  Jerusalem  in  no  way  resembled  the  General  Councils  of  the  Church, 
either  in  its  history,  its  constitution,  or  its  object.  It  was  not  a conven- 
tion of  ordained  delegates,  but  a meeting  of  the  entire  church  of  Jerusa- 
lem to  receive  a deputation  from  the  church  of  Antioch.  Even  Paul  and 
Barnabas  seem  to  have  had  no  vote  in  the  decision,  though  the  votes  of 
a promiscuous  body  could  certainly  not  be  more  enlightened  than  theirs, 
nor  was  their  allegiance  due  in  any  way  to  James.  The  church  of  Jeru- 
salem might  out  of  respect  be  consulted,  but  it  had  no  claim  to 
superiority,  no  abstract  prerogative  to  bind  its  decisions  on  the  free 
church  of  God.  The  ‘ decree  ’ of  the  ‘ council  ’ was  little  more  than  the 
wise  recommendation  of  a single  synod,  addressed  to  a particular  dis- 
trict, and  possessing  only  a temporary  validity.  It  was,  in  fact,  a local 
concordat.  Little  or  no  attention  has  been  paid  by  the  universal  church 
to  two  of  its  restrictions ; a third,  not  many  years  after,  was  twice  dis- 
cussed and  settled  by  Paul,  on  the  same  general  principles,  but  with  a 
by  no  means  identical  conclusion.  The  concession  which  it  made  to  the 
Gentiles,  in  not  insisting  on  the  necessity  of  circumcision,  was  equally 
treated  as  a dead  letter  by  the  Judaizing  party,  and  cost  Paul  the 
severest  battle  of  his  lifetime  to  maintain.  If  this  circular  letter  is  to  be 
regarded  as  a binding  and  final  decree,  and  if  the  meeting  of  a single 
church,  not  by  delegates,  but  in  the  person  of  all  its  members,  is  to  be 
regarded  as  a council,  never  was  the  decision  of  a council  less  appealed 
to,  and  never  was  a decree  regarded  as  so  entirely  inoperative  alike  by 
those  who  repudiated  the  validity  of  its  concessions,  and  by  those  who 
discussed,  as  though  they  were  still  an  open  question,  no  less  than 
three  of  its  four  restrictions.” 

§ 65.  The  Church  and  the  Kingdom  of  Christ. 

Thus  the  apostolic  church  appears  as  a free,  independent,  and 
complete  organism,  a system  of  supernatural,  divine  life  in  a 
human  body.  It  contains  in  itself  all  the  offices  and  energies 
required  for  its  purposes.  It  produces  the  supply  of  its  outward 
wants  from  its  own  free  spirit.  It  is  a self-supporting  and  self- 
governing  institution,  within  the  state,  but  not  of  the  state. 
Of  a union  with  the  state,  either  in  the  way  of  hierarchical 
supremacy  or  of  Erastian  subordination,  the  first  three  centuries 
afford  no  trace.  The  apostles  honor  the  civil  authority  as  a 


§ 65.  THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  KINGDOM  OF  CHRIST.  507 

divine  institution  for  the  protection  of  life  and  property,  for 
the  reward  of  the  good  and  the  punishment  of  the  evil-doer ; 
and  they  enjoin,  even  under  the  reign  of  a Claudius  and  a Nero, 
strict  obedience  to  it  in  all  civil  concerns ; as,  indeed,  their  hea- 
venly Master  himself  submitted  in  temporal  matters  to  Herod 
and  to  Pilate,  and  rendered  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  were 
Caesar’s.  But  in  their  spiritual  calling  they  allowed  nothing  to 
be  prescribed  or  forbidden  to  them  by  the  authorities  of  the 
state.  Their  principle  was,  to  “ obey  God  rather  than  men.” 
For  this  principle,  for  their  allegiance  to  the  King  of  kings, 
they  were  always  ready  to  suffer  imprisonment,  insult,  persecu- 
tion, and  death,  but  never  to  resort  to  carnal  weapons,  or  stir  up 
rebellion  and  revolution.  “ The  weapons  of  our  warfare,”  says 
Paul,  “ are  not  carnal,  but  mighty  through  God.”  Martyrdom 
is  a far  nobler  heroism  than  resistance  with  fire  and  sword,  and 
leads  with  greater  certainty  at  last  to  a thorough  and  permanent 
victory. 

The  apostolic  church,  as  to  its  membership,  was  not  free  from 
impurities,  the  after-workings  of  Judaism  and  heathenism  and 
the  natural  man.  But  in  virtue  of  an  inherent  authority  it 
exercised  rigid  discipline,  and  thus  steadily  asserted  its  dignity 
and  holiness.  It  was  not  perfect ; but  it  earnestly  strove  after 
the  perfection  of  manhood  in  Christ,  and  longed  and  hoped  for 
the  reappearance  of  the  Lord  in  glory,  to  the  exaltation  of  his 
people.  It  was  as  yet  not  actually  universal,  but  a little  flock 
compared  with  the  hostile  hosts  of  the  heathen  and  Jewish 
world ; yet  it  carried  in  itself  the  principle  of  true  catholicity, 
the  power  and  pledge  of  its  victory  over  all  other  religions,  and 
its  final  prevalence  among  all  nations  of  the  earth  and  in  all 
classes  of  society. 

Paul  defines  the  church  as  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ.1  He 
thus  represents  it  as  an  organic  living  system  of  various  mem- 
bers, powers,  and  functions,  and  at  the  same  time  as  the  abode 
of  Christ  and  the  organ  of  his  redeeming  and  sanctifying  influ- 

1 Rom.  12  : 5 ; 1 Cor.  6 : 15  ; 10  : 17  ; 12  : 27  ; Eph.  1 : 23 ; 4 : 12  ; 5 : 23,  30; 
Col.  1 : 18,  24  ; 2 : 17. 


508 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


ence  upon  the  world.  Christ  is,  in  one  view,  the  ruling  head, 
in  another  the  all-pervading  soul,  of  this  body.  Christ  with- 
out the  church  were  a head  without  a body,  a fountain  with- 
out a stream,  a king  without  subjects,  a captain  without  soldiers, 
a bridegroom  without  a bride.  The  church  without  Christ  were 
a body  without  soul  or  spirit — a lifeless  corpse.  The  church  lives 
only  as  Christ  lives  and  moves  and  works  in  her.  At  every 
moment  of  her  existence  she  is  dependent  on  him,  as  the  body 
on  the  soul,  or  the  branches  on  the  vine.  But  on  his  part  he 
perpetually  bestows  upon  her  his  heavenly  gifts  and  supernatural 
powers,  continually  reveals  himself  in  her,  and  uses  her  as  his 
organ  for  the  spread  of  his  kingdom  and  the  christianizing  of 
the  world,  till  all  principalities  and  powers  shall  yield  free  obe- 
dience to  him,  and  adore  him  as  the  eternal  Prophet,  Priest,  and 
King  of  the  regenerate  race.  This  work  must  be  a gradual  pro- 
cess of  history.  The  idea  of  a body,  and  of  all  organic  life,  in- 
cludes that  of  development,  of  expansion  and  consolidation. 
And  hence  the  same  Paul  speaks  also  of  the  growth  and  edifica- 
tion of  the  body  of  Christ,  “ till  we  all  attain  unto  the  unity  of 
the  faith,  and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  unto  a full- 
grown  man,  unto  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fulness  of 
Christ.”  1 

This  sublime  idea  of  the  church,  as  developed  in  the  First 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  and  especially  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians,  when  Paul  was  a prisoner  chained  to  a heathen 
soldier,  soars  high  above  the  actual  condition  of  the  little  flocks 
of  peasants,  freedmen,  slaves,  and  lowly,  uncultured  people  that 
composed  the  apostolic  congregations.  It  has  no  parallel  in  the 
social  ideals  of  ancient  philosophers  and  statesmen.  It  can  only 
be  traced  to  divine  inspiration. 

We  must  not  confound  this  lofty  conception  of  the  church  as 
the  body  of  Christ  with  any  particular  ecclesiastical  organiza- 
tion, which  at  best  is  only  a part  of  the  whole,  and  an  imperfect 
approach  to  the  ideal.  Nor  must  we  identify  it  with  the  still 
higher  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God  or  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 


1 Eph.  4 : 13. 


§65.  THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  KINGDOM  OF  CHRIST.  509 


A vast  amount  of  presumption,  bigotry,  and  intolerance  lias 
grown  out  of  such  confusion.  It  is  remarkable  that  Christ 
speaks  only  once  of  the  church  in  the  organic  or  universal 
sense.1  But  he  very  often  speaks  of  the  kingdom,  and  nearly 
all  his  parables  illustrate  this  grand  idea.  The  two  conceptions 
are  closely  related,  yet  distinct.  In  many  passages  we  could  not 
possibly  substitute  the  one  for  the  other  without  manifest  im- 
propriety.3 The  church  is  external,  visible,  manifold,  temporal ; 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  internal,  spiritual,  one,  and  ever- 
lasting. The  kingdom  is  older  and  more  comprehensive;  it 
embraces  all  the  true  children  of  God  on  earth  and  in  heaven, 
before  Christ  and  after  Christ,  inside  and  outside  of  the  churches 
and  sects.  The  historical  church  with  its  various  ramifications 
is  a paedagogic  institution  or  training-school  for  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  and  will  pass  away  as  to  its  outward  form  when  its  mis- 
sion is  fulfilled.  The  kingdom  has  come  in  Christ,  is  continu- 
ally coming,  and  will  finally  come  in  its  full  grown  strength  and 
beauty  when  the  King  will  visibly  appear  in  his  glory. 

The  coming  of  this  kingdom  in  and  through  the  visible 
churches,  with  varying  conflicts  and  victories,  is  the  proper 
object  of  church  history.  It  is  a slow,  but  sure  and  steady  prog- 
ress, with  many  obstructions,  delays,  circuitous  turns  and  wind- 
ings, but  constant  manifestations  of  the  presence  of  him  who 
sits  at  the  helm  of  the  ship  and  directs  it  through  rain,  storm, 
and  sunshine  to  the  harbor  of  the  other  and  better  world. 

1 Matt.  16:18.  In  the  other  passage  where  he  speaks  of  the  imcATjala,  Matt. 
18:17,  it  denotes  a local  congregation  (a  synagogue),  as  in  very  many  passa- 
ges of  the  Acts  and  Epistles.  We  use  the  word  church  in  two  additional 
senses  in  which  it  never  occurs  in  the  New  Test.,  because  the  thing  did  not 
exist  then,  namely,  of  church  buildings  and  of  denominations  (as  the  Roman 
Church,  Anglican  Church,  Lutheran  Church). 

2 We  could  not  say  “ Thy  church  come  ” (Matt.  6:9);  “to  such  (children) 
belongeth  the  church  ” (Mark  10  : 14) ; “ the  church  cometh  not  with  observa- 
tion” (Luke  17  :21) ; “ neither  fornicators,  etc.  . . . shall  inherit  th z church" 
(1  Cor.  6 : 10) ; “the  church  is  not  eating  and  drinking,  but  righteousness  and 
peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Spirit  ” (Rom.  15  : 17).  On  the  other  hand,  it  would 
be  improper  to  call  the  kingdom  of  God  “ the  body  of  Christ”  or  “ the  bride 
of  the  Lamb.” 


510 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100, 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THEOLOGY  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 

§ 66.  Literature. 

I.  Works  on  the  Theology  of  the  whole  New  Testament. 

August  Neander  (d.  1850) : Geschichte  der  Pflanzung  und  Leitung  der 
christl.  Kirche  durch  die  Apostel.  Hamburg,  1832 ; 4th  ed.,  1847, 
2 vols.  (in  the  second  vol.) ; Engl,  transl.  by  J.  A.  Ryland , Edinb., 
1842 ; revised  and  corrected  by  E.  G.  Robinson , New  York,  1865. 
Neander  and  Schmid  take  the  lead  in  a historical  analysis  of  the 
different  types  of  Apostolic  doctrine  (James,  Peter,  Paul,  John). 
Sam.  Lutz  : Biblische  Dogmatik , hei'ausgeg.  von  R.  Ruetschi.  Pforzheim, 
1847. 

Christ.  Friedr.  Schmid  (an  independent  co-laborer  of  Neander,  d.  1852) : 
Biblische  Theologie  des  Neuen  Testaments.  Ed.  by  Weizsacker. 
Stuttg.,  1853,  2d  ed.  1859.  2 vols.  (The  Engl,  translation  by  G. 

H.  Venables,  Edinb.,  1870,  is  merely  an  abridgment.) 

Edward  Reuss  (Prof,  in  Strassburg)  : Histoire  de  la  theologie  chretienne 
au  siecle  apostolique.  Strassb.,  1852.  3d  ed.,  Paris,  1864.  2 vols. 

English  translation  from  the  third  French  ed.  by  Annie  Harwood. 
London,  1872.  2 vols. 

Lutterbeck  (a  liberal  Rom.  Cath.)  : Die  N.  T.lichen  Lehrbegriffe,  oder 
Untersuchungen  iiber  das  Zeitalter  der  Religionswende.  Mainz,  1852. 
2 vols. 

G.  L.  Hahn  : Die  Theologie  des  Neuen  Testaments.  Bd.  I.  Leipzig,  1854. 

H.  Messner  : Die  Lehre  der  Apostel.  Leipz.,  1856.  Follows  in  the  path 

of  Neander. 

F.  Chr.  Baur  (d.  1860)  : Vorlesungen  iiber  neutestameniliche  Theologie. 
Leipz.,  1864.  Published  after  his  death,  by  his  son.  Sums  up  the 
bold  critical  speculations  of  the  founder  of  the  Tubingen  School. 
The  most  important  part  is  the  section  on  the  system  of  Paul. 

W.  Beyschlag  : Die  Christologie  des  Neuen  Testaments.  Berlin,  1866 
(260  pages). 

Thomas  Dehaney  Bernard  : Progress  of  Doctrine  in  the  New  Testament. 

Lectures  on  the  Bampton  Foundation.  London  and  Boston,  1867. 
H.  Ewald  : Die  Lehre  der  Bibel  von  Gott  oder  die  Theologie  des  alien 


§ 67.  UNITY  OF  APOSTOLIC  TEACHING. 


511 


und  neuen  Bundes.  Leipzig,  1871-76.  4 vols.  (More  important 

for  the  Old  Test,  than  for  the  New. ) 

A.  Immek  : Theologie  des  neuen  Testaments.  Bern,  1877. 

J.  J.  van  Oosterzee  : Biblische  Theol.  des  N.  T.  (translated  from  the 
Dutch).  Elberf.,  1868.  Engl,  transl.  by  Prof.  G.  E.  Day.  New 
Haven,  1870.  Another  English  translation  by  Maurice  J.  Evans: 
The  Theology  of  the  New  Test.,  etc.  London,  1870. 

Bernh.  Weiss  : Bibl.  Theologie  des  Neuen  Testaments.  Berlin,  1868 ; 
4th  ed.,  1884.  Engl,  translation,  Edinb.,  1883,  2 vols. 

II.  Separate  works  on  the  doctrinal  types  of  the  several  apostles,  by 
W.  G.  Schmidt,  and  Beyschlag,  on  James ; by  Mayerhoff,  Weiss, 
and  Morich,  on  Peter ; by  Usteri,  Pfleiderer,  Holsten,  Leathes, 
Irons,  on  Paul ; by  Riehm,  on  Hebrews ; by  Frommann,  Kostlin, 
Weiss,  Leathes,  on  John — quoted  in  previous  sections. 

III.  The  doctrinal  sections  in  the  Histories  of  the  Apostolic  Church  by 
Lange,  Lechler,  Thiersch,  Stanley,  and  Schaff  (pp.  614-679), 
besides  Neander  already  mentioned.  Comp,  also  Charles  A. 
Briggs  : The  idea , history  and  importance  of  Biblical  Theology , in 
the  “ Presbyterian  Review,”  New  York,  July,  1882. 

IV.  For  the  contrast  between  the  apostolic  and  the  rabbinical  theology, 
see  Ferd.  Weber  (a  missionary  among  the  Jews,  d.  1879)  : Sys- 
tem der  altsynagogalen  palastinsichen  Theologie , aus  Tar  gum,  Midrasch , 
und  Talmud  dargestellt.  Nach  des  Verf.  Tode  herausgeg.  von  Frz. 
Delitzsch  und  G.  Schnedermann.  Leipz.,  1880. 

§ 67.  Unity  of  Apostolic  Teaching. 

Christianity  is  primarily  not  merely  doctrine,  but  life,  a new 
moral  creation,  a saving  fact,  first  personally  embodied  in  Jesus 
Christ,  the  incarnate  Word,  the  God-man,  to  spread  from  him 
and  embrace  gradually  the  whole  body  of  the  race,  and  bring  it 
into  saving  fellowship  with  God.  The  same  is  true  of  Chris- 
tianity as  it  exists  subjectively  in  single  individuals.  It  begins 
not  with  religious  views  and  notions  simply ; though  it  includes 
these,  at  least  in  germ.  It  comes  as  a new  life ; as  regeneration, 
conversion,  and  sanctification ; as  a creative  fact  in  experience, 
taking  up  the  whole  man  with  all  his  faculties  and  capacities, 
releasing  him  from  the  guilt  and  the  power  of  sin,  and  recon- 
ciling him  with  God,  restoring  harmony  and  peace  to  the  soul, 
and  at  last  glorifying  the  body  itself.  Thus,  the  life  of  Christ 
is  mirrored  in  his  people,  rising  gradually,  through  the  use  of 


512 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


the  means  of  grace  and  the  continued  exercise  of  faith  and  love, 
to  its  maturity  in  the  resurrection. 

But  the  new  life  necessarily  contains  the  element  of  doctrine, 
or  knowledge  of  the  truth.  Christ  calls  himself  “ the  way,  the 
truth,  and  the  life.”  He  is  himself  the  personal  revelation  of 
saving  truth,  and  of  the  normal  relation  of  man  to  God.  Yet  this 
element  of  doctrine  itself  appears  in  the  lisew  Testament,  not  in 
the  form  of  an  abstract  theory,  the  product  of  speculation,  a 
scientific  system  of  ideas  subject  to  logical  and  mathematical 
demonstration ; but  as  the  fresh,  immediate  utterance  of  the 
supernatural,  divine  life,  a life-giving  power,  equally  practical 
and  theoretical,  coming  with  divine  authority  to  the  heart,  the 
will,  and  the  conscience,  as  well  as  to  the  mind,  and  irresistibly 
drawing  them  to  itself.  The  knowledge  of  God  in  Christ,  as  it 
meets  us  here,  is  at  the  same  time  eternal  life.1  We  must  not 
confound  truth  with  dogma.  Truth  is  the  divine  substance, 
doctrine  or  dogma  is  the  human  apprehension  and  statement  of 
it ; truth  is  a living  and  life-giving  power,  dogma  a logical 
formula ; truth  is  infinite,  unchanging,  and  eternal ; dogma 
is  finite,  changeable,  and  perfectible. 

The  Bible,  therefore,  is  not  only,  nor  principally,  a book  for 
the  learned,  but  a book  of  life  for  every  one,  an  epistle  written 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  mankind.  In  the  words  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles  there  breathes  the  highest  and  holiest  spiritual  power, 
the  vivifying  breath  of  God,  piercing  bone  and  marrow,  thrilling 
through  the  heart  and  conscience,  and  quickening  the  dead.  The 
life,  the  eternal  life,  which  was  from  the  beginning  with  the 
Father,  and  is  manifested  to  us,  there  comes  upon  us,  as  it  were, 
sensibly,  now  as  the  mighty  tornado,  now  as  the  gentle  zephyr ; 
now  overwhelming  and  casting  us  down  in  the  dust  of  humility 
and  penitence,  now  reviving  and  raising  us  to  the  joy  of  faith 
and  peace ; but  always  bringing  forth  a new  creature,  like  the 
word  of  power,  which  said  at  the  first  creation,  “ Let  there  be 
light ! ” Here  verily  is  holy  ground.  Here  is  the  door  of  eter- 
nity, the  true  ladder  to  heaven,  on  which  the  angels  of  God  are 

1 John  17: 3. 


§ G7.  UNITY  OF  APOSTOLIC  TEACHING.  613 

ascending  and  descending  in  unbroken  line.  No  number  of  sys- 
tems of  Christian  faith  and  morals,  therefore,  indispensable  as 
they  are  to  the  scientific  purposes  of  the  church  and  of  theology, 
can  ever  fill  the  place  of  the  Bible,  whose  words  are  spirit  and 
life. 

When  we  say  the  New  Testament  is  no  logically  arranged 
system  of  doctrines  and  precepts,  we  are  far  from  meaning  that 
it  has  no  internal  order  and  consistency.  On  the  contrary,  it 
exhibits  the  most  beautiful  harmony,  like  the  external  crea- 
tion, and  like  a true  work  of  art.  It  is  the  very  task  of  the  his- 
torian, and  especially  of  the  theologian,  to  bring  this  hidden  liv- 
ing order  to  view,  and  present  it  in  logical  and  scientific  forms. 
For  this  work  Paul,  the  only  one  of  the  apostles  who  received  a 
learned  education,  himself  furnishes  the  first  fruitful  suggestions, 
especially  in  his  epistle  to  the  Homans.  This  epistle  follows  a 
logical  arrangement  even  in  form,  and  approaches  as  nearly  to 
a scientific  treatise  as  it  could  consistently  with  the  fervent, 
direct,  practical,  popular  spirit  and  style  essential  to  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  inseparable  from  their  great  mission  for  all 
Christendom. 

The  substance  of  all  the  apostolic  teaching  is  the  witness  of 
Christ,  the  gospel,  and  the  free  message  of  that  divine  love  and 
salvation,  which  appeared  in  the  person  of  Christ,  was  secured 
to  mankind  by  his  work,  is  gradually  realized  in  the  kingdom  of 
God  on  earth,  and  will  be  completed  with  the  second  coming  of 
Christ  in  glory.  This  salvation  also  comes  in  close  connection 
with  Judaism,  as  the  fulfilment  of  the  law  and  the  prophets, 
the  substance  of  all  the  Old  Testament  types  and  shadows.  The 
several  doctrines  entering  essentially  into  this  apostolic  preach- 
ing are  most  beautifully  and  simply  arranged  and  presented  in 
what  is  called  the  Apostles’  Creed,  which,  though  not  in  its  pre- 
cise form,  yet,  as  regards  its  matter,  certainly  dates  from  the 
primitive  age  of  Christianity.  On  all  the  leading  points,  the 
person  of  Jesus  as  the  promised  Messiah,  his  holy  life,  his  aton- 
ing death,  his  triumphant  resurrection  and  exaltation  at  the 
right  hand  of  God,  and  his  second  coming  to  judge  the  world, 


514 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


the  establishment  of  the  church  as  a divine  institution,  the  com* 
munion  of  believers,  the  word  of  God,  and  the  sacraments  of 
baptism  and  the  Lord’s  supper,  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
the  necessity  of  repentance  and  conversion,  of  regeneration  and 
sanctification,  the  final  completion  of  salvation  in  the  day  of 
Jesus  Christ,  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  the  life  everlast- 
ing— on  all  these  points  the  apostles  are  perfectly  unanimous,  so 
far  as  their  writings  have  come  down  to  us. 

The  apostles  all  drew  their  doctrine  in  common  from  personal 
contact  with  the  divine-human  history  of  the  crucified  and  risen 
Saviour,  and  from  the  inward  illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  re- 
vealing the  person  and  the  work  of  Christ  in  them,  and  opening 
to  them  the  understanding  of  his  words  and  acts.  This  divine 
enlightenment  is  inspiration,  governing  not  only  the  composition 
of  the  sacred  writings,  but  also  the  oral  instructions  of  their 
authors ; not  merely  an  act,  but  a permanent  state.  The  apostles 
lived  and  moved  continually  in  the  element  of  truth.  They 
spoke,  wrote,  and  acted  from  the  spirit  of  truth  ; and  this,  not  as 
passive  instruments,  but  as  conscious  and  free  organs.  For  the 
Holy  Spirit  does  not  supersede  the  gifts  and  peculiarities  of 
nature,  which  are  ordained  by  God ; it  sanctifies  them  to  the 
service  of  his  kingdom.  Inspiration,  however,  is  concerned  only 
with  moral  and  religious  truths,  and  the  communication  of  what 
is  necessary  to  salvation.  Incidental  matters  of  geography,  his- 
tory, archaeology,  and  of  mere  personal  interest,  can  be  regarded 
as  directed  by  inspiration  only  so  far  as  they  really  affect  reli- 
gious truth. 

The  revelation  of  the  body  of  Christian  truth  essential  to  sal- 
vation coincides  in  extent  with  the  received  canon  of  the  New 
Testament.  There  is  indeed  constant  growth  and  development 
in  the  Christian  church,  which  progresses  outwardly  and  in- 
wardly in  proportion  to  the  degree  of  its  vitality  and  zeal,  but 
it  is  a progress  of  apprehension  and  appropriation  by  man,  not 
of  communication  or  revelation  by  God.  We  may  speak  of  a 
secondary  inspiration  of  extraordinary  men  whom  God  raises 
from  time  to  time,  but  their  writings  must  be  measured  by  the 


§ 68.  DIFFERENT  TYPES  OF  APOSTOLIC  TEACHING.  615 

only  infallible  standard,  the  teaching  of  Christ  and  his  apostles. 
Every  true  advance  in  Christian  knowledge  and  life  is  condi- 
tioned by  a deeper  descent  into  the  mind  and  spirit  of  Christ, 
who  declared  the  whole  counsel  of  God  and  the  way  of  salva- 
tion, first  in  person,  and  then  through  his  apostles. 

The  New  Testament  is  thus  but  one  book,  the  teaching  of  one 
mind,  the  mind  of  Christ.  He  gave  to  his  disciples  the  words 
of  life  which  the  Father  gave  him,  and  inspired  them  with  the 
spirit  of  truth  to  reveal  his  glory  to  them.  Herein  consists  the 
unity  and  harmony  of  the  twenty-seven  writings  which  consti- 
tute the  New  Testament,  for  all  emergencies  and  for  perpetual 
use,  until  the  written  and  printed  word  shall  be  superseded  by 
the  reappearance  of  the  personal  Word,  and  the  beatific  vision 
of  saints  in  light. 

§ 68.  Different  Types  of  Apostolic  Teaching. 

With  all  this  harmony,  the  Christian  doctrine  appears  in  the 
New  Testament  in  different  forms  according  to  the  peculiar 
character,  education,  and  sphere  of  the  several  sacred  writers. 
The  truth  of  the  gospel,  in  itself  infinite,  can  adapt  itself  to 
every  class,  to  every  temperament,  every  order  of  talent,  and 
every  habit  of  thought.  Like  the  light  of  the  sun,  it  breaks 
into  various  colors  according  to  the  nature  of  the  bodies  on  which 
it  falls ; like  the  jewel,  it  emits  a new  radiance  at  every  turn. 

Irenaeus  speaks  of  a fourfold  “ Gospel.” 1 In  like  manner  we 
may  distinguish  a fourfold  “ Apostle,” 2 or  four  corresponding 
types  of  apostolic  doctrine.3  The  Epistle  of  James  corresponds 
to  the  Gospel  of  Matthew ; the  Epistles  of  Peter  and  his  ad- 
dresses in  the  Acts  to  that  of  Mark ; the  Epistles  of  Paul  to 
the  Gospel  of  Luke  and  his  Acts ; and  the  Epistles  of  John 
to  the  Gospel  of  the  same  apostle. 

1 evayyeXiov  rerpapLopcpov.  2 tinroaroAos. 

3 Corap.  rvvos  didaxys,  Rom.  6 : 17,  and  the  remarks  of  Weiss  in  loc.  (6th  ed. 
of  Meyer’s  Com.,  1881),  who  takes  the  word  in  specific  application  to  the  Pau- 
line doctrine  of  Christianity  ; while  others  refer  it  to  the  Christian  system  in 
general.  Similar  terms  in  Plato,  tvitoi  vaiSdas,  rinros  ttjs  5ida.aKa.Aias,  eta. 


516 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


This  division,  however,  both  as  regards  the  Gospels  and  the 
Epistles,  is  subordinate  to  a broader  difference  between  Jewish 
and  Gentile  Christianity,  which  runs  through  the  entire  history 
of  the  apostolic  period  and  affects  even  the  doctrine,  the  polity, 
the  worship,  and  the  practical  life  of  the  church.  The  differ- 
ence rests  on  the  great  religious  division  of  the  world,  before 
and  at  the  time  of  Christ,  and  continued  until  a native  Chris- 
tian race  took  the  place  of  the  first  generation  of  converts.  The 
Jews  naturally  took  the  Christian  faitli  into  intimate  association 
with  the  divinely  revealed  religion  of  the  old  covenant,  and 
adhered  as  far  as  possible  to  their  sacred  institutions  and  rites ; 
while  the  heathen  converts,  not  having  known  the  law  of  Moses, 
passed  at  once  from  the  state  of  nature  to  the  state  of  grace. 
The  former  represented  the  historical,  traditional,  conservative 
principle;  the  latter,  the  principle  of  freedom,  independence, 
and  progress. 

Accordingly  we  have  two  classes  of  teachers : apostles  of  the 
Jews  or  of  the  circumcision,  and  apostles  of  the  Gentiles  or  of 
the  uncircumcision.  That  this  distinction  extends  farther  than 
the  mere  missionary  field,  and  enters  into  all  the  doctrinal  views 
and  practical  life  of  the  parties,  we  see  from  the  accounts  of  the 
apostolic  council  which  was  held  for  the  express  purpose  of  ad- 
justing the  difference  respecting  the  authority  of  the  Mosaic 
law. 

But  the  opposition  was  only  relative,  though  it  caused  colli- 
sions at  times,  and  even  temporary  alienation,  as  between  Paul 
and  Peter  at  Antioch.1  As  the  two  forms  of  Christianity  had 
a common  root  in  the  full  life  of  Christ,  the  Saviour  of  both 
Gentiles  and  Jews,  so  they  gradually  grew  together  into  the 
unity  of  the  catholic  church.  And  as  Peter  represents  the 
Jewish  church,  and  Paul  the  Gentile,  so  John,  at  the  close  of 
the  apostolic  age,  embodies  the  higher  union  of  the  two. 

With  this  difference  of  standpoint  are  connected  subordinate 
differences,  as  of  temperament,  style,  method.  James  has  been 
distinguished  as  the  apostle  of  the  law  or  of  works ; Peter,  as  the 
1 Gal.  2 : 11  sqq.  See  § 35,  pp.  352  sqq. 


§ 69.  THE  JEWISH  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY.  517 


apostle  of  hope;  Paul,  as  the  apostle  of  faith;  and  John,  as 
the  apostle  of  love.  To  the  first  has  been  assigned  the  phleg- 
matic (?)  temperament,  in  its  sanctified  Christian  state,  to  the 
second  the  sanguine,  to  the  third  the  choleric,  and  to  the  fourth 
the  melancholic ; a distribution,  however,  only  admissible  in  a 
very  limited  sense.  The  four  gospels  also  present  similar  dif- 
ferences ; the  first  having  close  affinity  to  the  position  of  James, 
the  second  to  that  of  Peter,  the  third  to  that  of  Paul,  and  the 
fourth  representing  in  its  doctrinal  element  the  spirit  of  John. 

If  we  make  the  difference  between  Jewish  and  Gentile  Chris- 
tianity the  basis  of  classification,  we  may  reduce  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament  to  three  types  of  doctrine:  the  Jewish 
Christian,  the  Gentile  Christian,  and  the  ideal  or  unionistic 
Christian.  The  first  is  chiefly  represented  by  Peter,  the  second 
by  Paul,  the  third  by  John.  As  to  James,  he  must  be  ranked 
under  the  first  type  as  the  local  head  of  the  Jerusalem  wing  of 
the  conservative  school,  while  Peter  was  the  (ecumenical  head 
of  the  whole  church  of  the  circumcision.1 


§ 69.  The  Jewish  Christian  Theology — I.  James  and  the  Gos- 

jpel  of  Law. 

(Comp.  § 27,  and  the  Lit.  given  there.) 

The  Jewish  Christian  type  embraces  the  Epistles  of  James, 
Peter,  and  Jude,  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  to 
some  extent  the  Revelation  of  John ; for  John  is  placed  by 
Paul  among  the  “pillars”  of  the  church  of  the  circumcision, 
though  in  his  later  writings  he  took  an  independent  position 

1 Schelling’s  great  idea  of  the  three  ages  in  the  history  of  Christianity,  the 
Petrine  (catholic),  the  Pauline  (protestant),  and  the  Johannean  (future),  is 
well  known.  I saw  the  aged  philosopher  shortly  before  his  death,  in  a hotel 
at  Ragatz,  Switzerland  (August,  1854),  and  found  him  lying  on  his  bed,  as 
pale  as  a corpse,  but  with  clear  mind  and  brilliant  eyes.  When  I asked  him 
whether  he  still  held  to  that  construction  of  church  history,  he  emphatically 
replied  in  the  affirmative,  but  added  that  he  had,  on  further  reflection,  made 
room  for  James  as  the  representative  of  the  Greek  church,  in  distinction  from 
the  Roman  or  Petrine  church.  I mention  this  as  an  interesting  modification 
of  his  theory,  not  made  known  before,  and  as  containing  a grain  of  truth. 


518 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


above  the  distinction  of  Jew  and  Gentile.  In  these  books, 
originally  designed  mainly,  though  not  exclusively,  for  Jewish 
Christian  readers,  Christianity  is  exhibited  in  its  unity  with  the 
Old  Testament,  as  the  fulfilment  of  the  same.  They  unfold  the 
fundamental  idea  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Matt.  5 : 17), 
that  Christ  did  not  come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets, 
but  to  “ fulfil.”  The  Gospels,  especially  that  of  Matthew,  show 
historically  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah,  the  lawgiver,  the  prophet, 
priest,  and  king  of  Israel. 

On  this  historical  basis  James  and  Peter  build  their  practical 
exhortations,  witli  this  difference,  that  the  former  shows  chiefly 
the  agreement  of  the  gospel  with  the  law,  the  latter  with  the 
prophets. 

James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  in  keeping  with  his  life-long 
labors  in  Jerusalem,  his  speech  at  the  Council,  and  the  letter  of  the 
Council — which  he  probably  wrote  himself — holds  most  closely 
to  the  Mosaic  religion,  and  represents  the  gospel  itself  as  law , 
yet  as  the  “ perfect  law  of  liberty .”  1 Herein  lies  the  difference 
as  well  as  the  unity  of  the  two  dispensations.  The  “ law  ” 
points  to  the  harmony,  the  qualifying  “perfect”  and  “liberty” 
to  the  superiority  of  Christianity,  and  intimates  that  Judaism 
was  imperfect  and  a law  of  bondage , from  which  Christ  has  set 
us  free.  Paul,  on  the  contrary,  distinguishes  the  gospel  as  free- 
dom from  the  law,  as  a system  of  slavery ; 2 * but  he  re-establishes 
the  law  on  the  basis  of  freedom,  and  sums  up  the  whole  Chris- 
tian life  in  the  fulfilment  of  the  law  of  love  to  God  and  to  our 
neighbor;  therein  meeting  James  from  the  opposite  starting- 
point.8 

James,  the  Christian  legalist,  lays  great  stress  on  good  works 
which  the  law  requires,  but  he  demands  works  which  are  the 
fruit  of  faith  in  Him,  whom  he,  as  his  servant,  reverently  calls 
“ the  Lord  of  glory,”  and  whose  words  as  reported  by  Matthew 
are  the  basis  of  his  exhortations.4  Such  faith,  moreover,  is  the 

1 James  1 : 25  : els  vifiov  re\eiov  rbv  rrjs  e\eu&eplas.  2 Gal.  5:1;  2 Cor.  3 : 6 

3 Comp.  Gal.  6 : 2 (the  law  of  Christ)  ; Rom.  13  : 8 sqq.  ; 3 : 22  8:2. 

4 Ch.  1:1;  2:1;  riju  icurriv  rod  Kvpiou  Tjfxuv  * Iriaov  Xpiorov  rrjs  Hofas. 


§ 69.  TIIE  JEWISn  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


519 


result  of  a new  birth,  which  lie  traces  to  “the  will  of  God” 
through  the  agency  of  “ the  word  of  truth,”  that  is,  the  gospel.1 

As  to  the  relation  between  faith  and  works  and  their  connec- 
tion with  justification  at  the  tribunal  of  God,  he  seems  to  teach 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  and  works • while  Paul 
teaches  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone,  to  be  followed 
by  good  works,  as  the  necessary  evidence  of  faith.  The  two 
views  as  thus  stated  are  embodied  in  the  Homan  Catholic  and 
the  evangelical  Protestant  confessions,  and  form  one  of  the 
chief  topics  of  controversy.  But  the  contradiction  between 
James  and  Paul  is  verbal  rather  than  logical  and  doctrinal,  and 
admits  of  a reconciliation  which  lies  in  the  inseparable  connec- 
tion of  a living  faith  and  good  works,  or  of  justification  and 
sanctification,  so  that  they  supplement  and  confirm  each  other, 
the  one  laying  the  true  foundation  in  character,  the  other  insist- 
ing on  the  practical  manifestation.  James  wrote  probably  long 
before  he  had  seen  any  of  Paul’s  Epistles,  certainly  with  no 
view  to  refute  his  doctrine  or  even  to  guard  it  against  antino- 
mian  abuse;  for  this  was  quite  unnecessary,  as  Paul  did  it 
clearly  enough  himself,  and  it  would  have  been  quite  useless  for 
Jewish  Christian  readers  who  were  exposed  to  the  danger  of  a 
barren  legalism,  but  not  of  a pseudo-Pauline  liberalism  and  anti- 
nomianism.  They  cannot,  indeed,  be  made  to  say  precisely  the 
same  thing,  only  using  one  or  more  of  the  three  terms,  “ to 
justify,”  “faith,”  “works”  in  different  senses;  but  they  wrote 
from  different  standpoints  and  opposed  different  errors,  and  thus 
presented  two  distinct  aspects  of  the  same  truth.  James  says  : 
Faith  is  dead  without  works.  Paul  says  : Works  are  dead  with- 
out faith.  The  one  insists  on  a working  faith,  the  other  on 
faithful  works.  Both  are  right : James  in  opposition  to  the  dead 
Jewish  orthodoxy,  Paul  in  opposition  to  self-righteous  legal- 
ism. James  does  not  demand  works  without  faith,  but  works 
prompted  by  faith ; 2 while  Paul,  on  the  other  hand,  likewise 

1 Ch.  1 : 18  : (3ov\ri&eis  aireicvrio'ii'  yfxas  a\rj^elas. 

,J  Cb.  2 : 22  : 7}  irurris  awi)  pys  i rois  t^yois  avrov  Ka\  iK  ruv  epywv  rj  Ttans 
i r e \ e i w . 


520 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


declares  a faith  worthless  which  is  without  love,  though  it  re- 
move mountains,1  and  would  never  have  attributed  a justifying 
power  to  the  mere  belief  in  the  existence  of  God,  which  James 
calls  the  trembling  faith  of  demons.2  But  James  mainly  looks 
at  the  fruit,  Paul  at  the  root ; the  one  is  concerned  for  the  evi- 
dence, the  other  for  the  principle ; the  one  takes  the  practical 
and  experimental  view,  and  reasons  from  the  effect  to  the  cause, 
the  other  goes  deeper  to  the  inmost  springs  of  action,  but  comes 
to  the  same  result : a holy  life  of  love  and  obedience  as  the 
necessary  evidence  of  true  faith.  And  this,  after  all,  is  the 
ultimate  standard  of  judgment  according  to  Paul  as  well  as 
J ames.3  Paul  puts  the  solution  of  the  difficulty  in  one  sentence : 
“faith  working  through  love.”  This  is  the  Irenicon  of  con- 
tending apostles  and  contending  churches.4 

The  Epistle  of  James  stands  at  the  head  of  the  Catholic  Epis- 
tles, so  called,  and  represents  the  first  and  lowest  stage  of 
Christian  knowledge.  It  is  doctrinally  very  meagre,  but  emi- 

1 1 Cor.  13  : 2.  8 Ch.  2 : 19. 

3 See  Rom.  2 : 6 ( bs  cbro&«<ret  eKacrrcp  Kara  rh.  epya  avrov)  ; 2 Cor.  5 : 10  ; 
Gal.  6:7;  comp.  Matt.  12:37;  25  : 35  sqq.  The  solution  of  the  apparent 
contradiction  between  the  doctrines  of  justification  by  faith  and  judgment  by 
works  lies  in  the  character  of  the  works  as  being  the  evidence  of  faith. 

4 Gal.  5:6:  ttIcttis  S l ayainjs  ivepyovpevr),  is  operative  (in  the  middle  sense, 
as  always  in  the  New  Test.).  “ These  words,”  says  Bishop  Lightfoot  (in  loc .), 
“bridge  the  gulf  which  seems  to  separate  the  language  of  St.  Paul  and  St. 
James.  Both  assert  a principle  of  practical  energy,  as  opposed  to  a barren 
inactive  theory.”  To  quote  from  my  own  commentary  on  the  passage  (1882) : 
“ The  sentence  ‘ faith  working  through  love’  reconciles  the  doctrine  of  Paul 
with  that  of  James;  comp.  6 : 15  ; 1 Thess.  1 : 3 ; 1 Cor.  ch.  13  ; 1 Tim.  1:5; 
James  2 : 22.  Here  is  the  basis  for  a final  settlement  of  the  controversy  on 
the  doctrine  of  justification.  Romanism  (following  exclusively  the  language 
of  James)  teaches  justification  by  faith  and  works  ; Protestantism  (on  the  au- 
thority of  Paul),  justification  by  faith  alone ; Paul  and  James  combined: 
justification  and  salvation  by  faith  working  through  love.  Man  is  justified 
by  faith  alone,  but  faith  remains  not  alone  : it  is  the  fruitful  mother  of 
good  works,  which  are  summed  up  in  love  to  God  and  love  to  men.  Faith  and 
love  are  as  inseparable  as  light  and  heat  in  the  sun.  Christ’s  merits  are  the 
objective  and  meritorious  ground  of  justification ; faith  (as  the  organ  of  appro- 
priation) is  the  subjective  condition  ; love  or  good  works  are  the  necessary  evi- 
dence ; without  love  faith  is  dead,  according  to  James,  or  no  faith  at  all, 
according  to  Paul.  A great  deal  of  misunderstanding  in  this  and  other  theo- 
logical controversies  has  arisen  from  the  different  use  of  terms.” 


§ G9.  TIIE  JEWISH  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


52l 


nently  practical  and  popular.  It  enjoins  a simple,  earnest, 
and  devout  style  of  piety  that  visits  the  orphans  and  widows, 
and  keeps  itself  unspotted  from  the  world.1 

The  close  connection  between  the  Epistle  of  James  and  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew  arises  naturally  from  their  common  Jewish 
Christian  and  Palestinian  origin. 


Notes. 

I.  James  and  Paul.  The  apparent  contradiction  in  the  doctrine  of 
justification  appears  in  James  2 : 14-26,  as  compared  with  Rom.  3 : 20 
sqq. ; 4 : 1 sqq. ; Gal.  2 : 16  sqq.  Paul  says  (Rom.  3 : 28)  : “ Man  is  justi- 
fied by  faith  apart  from  works  of  law  ” (ttIcttci  cpryuv  vopov ),  comp. 

Gal.  2 : 16  ( ov  ducaiovrat  (Iv^pwTros  epycov  vopov  *av  prj  8ui  nlarecos  Xpicrrov 
’I rjaov),  and  appeals  to  the  example  of  Abraham,  who  was  justified  by 
faith  before  he  was  circumcised  (Gen.  17  : 10).  James  says  (2  : 24)  : “ By 
works  a man  is  justified,  and  not  only  by  faith”  (e£  cpyco v diKiuoirai 
avSpunos  Kat  ovk  ck  nliTTeaa  povov),  and  appeals  to  the  example  of  the 
same  Abraham  who  showed  his  true  faith  in  God  by  offering  up  his  son 
Isaac  upon  the  altar  (Gen.  22  : 9,  12).  Luther  makes  the  contradiction 
worse  by  unnecessarily  inserting  the  word  allein  [sola  fide)  in  Rom.  3 : 28, 
though  not  without  precedent  (see  my  note  on  the  passage  in  the  Am. 
ed.  of  Lange  on  Romans , p.  136).  The  great  Reformer  could  not  recon- 
cile the  two  apostles,  and  rashly  called  the  Epistle  of  James  an  “epistle 
of  straw”  ( eine  recht  stroherne  Epistel , Pref.  to  the  New  Test.,  1524). 

Baur,  from  a purely  critical  point  of  view,  comes  to  the  same  conclu- 
sion ; he  regards  the  Epistle  of  James  as  a direct  attack  upon  the  very  heart 
of  the  doctrine  of  Paul,  and  treats  all  attempts  at  reconciliation  as  vain. 
( Vorles . uber  neutestam.  Theol.,  p.  277).  So  also  Renan  and  Weiffenbach. 
Renan  (St.  Paul , ch.  10)  asserts  without  proof  that  James  organized  a 
Jewish  counter-mission  to  undermine  Paul.  But  in  this  case,  James,  as 
a sensible  and  practical  man,  ought  to  have  written  to  Gentile  Christians, 
not  to  “the  twelve  tribes,”  who  needed  no  warning  against  Paul  and  his 
doctrine.  His  Epistle  represents  simply  an  earlier  and  lower  form  of 
Christianity  ignorant  of  the  higher,  yet  preparatory  to  it,  as  the  preach- 
ing of  John  the  Baptist  prepared  the  way  for  that  of  Christ.  It  was  writ- 
ten without  any  reference  to  Paul,  probably  before  the  Council  of  Jeru- 
salem and  before  the  circumcision  controversy,  in  the  earliest  stage  of 
the  apostolic  church  as  it  is  described  in  the  first  chapters  of  the  Acts* 
when  the  Christians  were  not  yet  clearly  distinguished  and  finally  sepa- 
rated from  the  Jews.  This  view  of  the  early  origin  of  the  Epistle  is 
maintained  by  some  of  the  ablest  historians  and  commentators,  as 

1 Ch.  1 : 27  ; comp.  5 : 13  sqq. , and  the  concluding  verse. 


522 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Neander,  Schneckenburger,  Theile,  Thiersch,  Beyschlag,  Alford,  Bassett, 
Plumptre,  Stanley.  Weiss  also  says  very  confidently  ( Bibl . Theol.,  3d 
ed.,  p.  120) : “ Der  Brief  gehort  der  vorpaulinischen  Zeit  an  und  stehtjeden - 
falls  zeitlich  wie  inhaltlich  dem  ersten  Brief  Petri  am  nachsten”  He  there- 
fore treats  both  James  and  Peter  on  their  own  merits,  without  regard  to 
Paul’s  teaching.  Comp,  his  Einleitung  in  d.  N.  T.  (1886),  p.  400. 

II.  James  and  Matthew.  The  correspondence  has  often  been  fully 
pointed  out  by  Theile  and  other  commentators.  James  contains  more 
reminiscences  of  the  words  of  Christ  than  any  other  Epistle,  especially 
from  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Comp.  James  1 : 2 with  Matt.  5 : 10-12 ; 
James  1 : 4 with  Matt.  5 : 48 ; James  1 : 17  with  Matt.  7 : 11 ; James  1 : 20 
with  Matt.  5 : 22 ; James  1 : 22  sqq.  with  Matt.  7 : 21  sq. ; James  1 : 23 
with  Matt.  7:26;  James  2 : 13  with  Matt.  6 : 14  sq. ; James  2 : 14  with 
Matt.  7 : 21-23 ; James  3 : 2 with  Matt.  12  : 36,  37 ; James  3 : 17,  18  with 
Matt.  5:9;  James  4 : 3 with  Matt.  7:7;  James  4 : 4 with  Matt.  6 : 24 ; 
James  5 : 12  with  Matt.  5 : 34.  According  to  a notice  in  the  pseudo- 
Athanasian  Synopsis,  James  “ the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  ” translated  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew  from  the  Aramaic  into  the  Greek.  But  there  are  also 
parallelisms  between  James  and  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter,  and  even  be- 
tween James  and  the  apocryphal  books  of  Ecclesiasticus  and  the  Wisdom 
of  Solomon.  See  Plumptre,  Com.  on  James , pp.  32  sq. 

§ 70.  II.  Peter  and  the  Gospel  of  Hope . 

(Comp,  the  Lit.  in  §§  25  and  26.) 

Peter  stands  between  James  and  Paul,  and  forms  the  transi- 
tion from  the  extreme  conservatism  of  the  one  to  the  progres- 
sive liberalism  of  the  other.  The  germ  of  his  doctrinal  system 
is  contained  in  his  great  confession  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God.1  A short  creed  indeed,  with  only 
one  article,  but  a fundamental  and  all-comprehensive  article,  the 
corner-stone  of  the  Christian  church.  His  system,  therefore, 
is  christological,  and  supplements  the  anthropological  type  of 
James.  His  addresses  in  the  Acts  and  his  Epistles  are  full  of 
the  fresh  impressions  which  the  personal  intercourse  with  Christ 
made  upon  his  noble,  enthusiastic,  and  impulsive  nature.  Chris- 
tianity is  the  fulfilment  of  all  the  Messianic  prophecies ; but  it 
is  at  the  same  time  itself  a prophecy  of  the  glorious  return  of  the 
Lord.  This  future  glorious  manifestation  is  so  certain  that  it  is 
1 Matt.  16  : 1G;  comp.  John  6 : 68,  G9. 


§ 70.  PETER  AND  THE  GOSPEL  OF  HOPE. 


523 


already  anticipated  here  in  blessed  joy  by  a lively  hope  which 
stimulates  to  a holy  life  of  preparation  for  the  end.  Hence, 
Peter  eminently  deserves  to  be  called  “ the  Apostle  of  hope.”  1 

I.  Peter  began  his  testimony  with  the  announcement  of  the 
historical  facts  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  and  the  outpouring  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  represents  these  facts  as  the  divine  seal  of 
his  Messiahship,  according  to  the  prophets  of  old,  who  bear 
witness  to  him  that  through  his  name  every  one  that  believes 
shall  receive  remission  of  sins.  The  same  Jesus  whom  God 
raised  from  the  dead  and  exalted  to  his  right  hand  as  Lord  and 
Saviour,  will  come  again  to  judge  his  people  and  to  bring  in 
seasons  of  refreshing  from  his  presence  and  the  ajpokatastasis 
or  restitution  of  all  things  to  their  normal  and  perfect  state, 
thus  completely  fulfilling  the  Messianic  prophecies.  There  is 
no  salvation  out  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  condition  of 
this  salvation  is  the  acknowledgment  of  his  Messiahship  and 
the  change  of  mind  and  conduct  from  the  service  of  sin  to 
holiness.2 

These  views  are  so  simple,  primitive,  and  appropriate  that  we 
cannot  conceive  how  Peter  could  have  preached  differently  and 
more  effectively  in  that  early  stage  of  Christianity.  We  need 
not  wonder  at  the  conversion  of  three  thousand  souls  in  conse- 
quence of  his  pentecostal  sermon.  His  knowledge  gradually 
widened  and  deepened  with  the  expansion  of  Christianity  and 
the  conversion  of  Cornelius.  A special  revelation  enlightened 
him  on  the  question  of  circumcision  and  brought  him  to  the 
conviction  that  “ in  every  nation  he  that  fears  God  and  works 
righteousness,  is  acceptable  to  him,”  and  that  Jews  and  Gentiles 
are  saved  alike  by  the  grace  of  Christ  through  faith,  without 
the  unbearable  yoke  of  the  ceremonial  law.3 

1 Weiss  (p.  172) : “Die  Hoffnung  bildet  in  der  Anschauung  des  Petrus  den 
eigentlichen  Mittelpunkt  des  Christenlebens.  Sie  erscheint  bei  ihm  in  der  hochs- 
ten  Energie , wonach  die  gehoffte  Vollendung  bereits  unmittdbar  nahe  geruckt 
erscheint .” 

2 See  his  pentecostal  sermon,  Acts  2 : 14  sqq.  ; his  addresses  to  the  people, 

3  : 12  sqq. ; before  the  Sanhedrin,  4 : 8 sqq.  ; 5 : 29  sqq. ; to  Cornelius, 
10  : 34  sqq.  3 Acts  10  : 35  ; 15  : 7-11. 


524 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


II.  The  Epistles  of  Peter  represent  this  riper  stage  of  knowl 
edge.  They  agree  substantially  with  the  teaching  of  Paul. 
The  leading  idea  is  the  same  as  that  presented  in  his  addresses 
in  the  Acts : Christ  the  f ulfiller  of  the  Messianic  prophecies, 
and  the  hope  of  the  Christian.  Peter’s  christology  is  free  of 
all  speculative  elements,  and  simply  derived  from  the  impres- 
sion of  the  historical  and  risen  Jesus.  He  emphasizes  in  the 
first  Epistle,  as  in  his  earlier  addresses,  the  resurrection  where- 
by God  “ begat  us  again  unto  a lively  hope,  unto  an  inherit- 
ance incorruptible,  and  undefiled,  and  that  fadeth  not  away, 
reserved  in  heaven,”  when  “ the  chief  shepherd  shall  be  mani- 
fested,” and  we  u shall  receive  the  crown  of  glory.”  And  in  the 
second  Epistle  he  points  forward  to  “ new  heavens  and  a new 
earth,  wherein  dwelleth  righteousness.”  1 lie  thus  connects  tne 
resurrection  of  Christ  with  the  final  consummation  of  which  it 
is  the  sure  pledge.  But,  besides  the  resurrection,  he  brings  out 
also  the  atoning  efficacy  of  the  death  of  Christ  almost  as  strongly 
and  clearly  as  Paul.  Christ  “ suffered  for  sins  once,  the  right- 
eous for  the  unrighteous,  that  he  might  bring  us  to  God ; ” he 
himself  “bare  our  sins  in  his  body  upon  the  tree,  that  we,  hav- 
ing died  unto  sins,  might  live  unto  righteousness ; ” he  redeemed 
us  “ with  precious  blood,  as  of  a lamb  without  blemish  and 
without  spot.” 2 Christ  is  to  him  the  only  Saviour,  the  Lord, 
the  Prince  of  life,  the  Judge  of  the  world.  lie  assigns  him  a 
majestic  position  far  above  all  other  men,  and  brings  him  into 
the  closest  contact  with  the  eternal  Jehovah,  though  in  subordi- 
nation to  him.  The  doctrine  of  the  pre-existence  seems  to  be 
intimated  and  implied,  if  not  expressly  stated,  when  Christ  is 
spoken  of  as  being  “ foreknown  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world  ” and  “ manifested  at  the  end  of  the  time,”  and  his  Spirit 
as  dwelling  in  the  prophets  of  old  and  pointing  them  to  his 
future  sufferings  and  glory.3 

1 1 Pet.  1 : 3-5  ; 5 : 4 ; 2 Pet.  3:13.  2 1 Pet.  1 : 18  sqq.  ; 2:24;  3 : 18  sqq. 

31  Pet.  1 : 20  : Xpiarov  ir p o e y v(o  <r  p.  e v o v fxkv  irpb  Kara[io\r\s  k6o/iov , 
<P  a v c p u)  & e v r o s 5 e,  k.  t.  A.  ; 1:11:  rb  4v  avrois  ( rots  trpo^rais)  iryev/ax 
Xpiffrov  ir pop.aprup6ix.evov,  k.  t.  A.  Schmid,  Lechler,  Gess,  and  others  under- 
stand these  passages  as  teaching  a real  pre-existence  ; Beyschlag  (i.c.,  p.  121) 


§ 71.  TIIE  GENTILE  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY.  525 


III.  Peter  extends  the  preaching,  judging,  and  saving  activity 
of  Christ  to  the  realm  of  the  departed  spirits  in  Hades  during 
the  mysterious  triduum  between  the  crucifixion  and  the  resur- 
rection.1 The  descent  into  Hades  is  also  taught  by  Paul  (Eph. 
4 : 9,  10). 

IV.  With  this  theory  correspond  the  practical  exhortations. 
Subjective  Christianity  is  represented  as  faith  in  the  historical 
Christ  and  as  a lively  hope  in  his  glorious  reappearance,  which 
should  make  the  Christians  rejoice  even  amidst  trials  and  perse- 
cution, after  the  example  of  their  Lord  and  Saviour. 


§ 71.  The  Gentile  Christian  Theology.  Paul  and  the  Gospel 

of  Faith. 

(See  the  Lit.  in  § 29,  pp.  280  sqq.) 

The  Gentile  Christian  type  of  the  gospel  is  embodied  in  the 
writings  of  Paul  and  Luke,  and  in  the  anonymous  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews. 

The  sources  of  Paul’s  theology  are  his  discourses  in  the  Acts 
(especially  the  speech  on  the  Areopagus)  and  his  thirteen  Epis- 
tles, namely,  the  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians — the  earliest,  but 
chiefly  practical ; the  four  great  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians, 
Galatians,  and  Homans,  which  are  the  mature  result  of  his  con- 

finds  in  them  only  an  ideal  pre-existence  in  the  foreknowledge  of  God,  and 
emphasizes  the  eirol^crev  in  Acts  2 : 36.  He  refers  the  irvevua  Xpiaruv  to  the 
Holy  Spirit,  which  was  afterwards  given  in  full  measure  to  Christ  at  his  bap- 
tism. So  also  Weiss  (p.  161).  But  in  this  case  Peter  would  have  said  rb 
irvevfia  ayiou , as  he  did  1 Pet.  1 : 12  ; 2 Pet.  1 : 21  ; Acts  2 : 33,  38. 

1 1 Pet.  3 : 19;  4:6;  comp.  Acts  2 : 27.  The  reference  of  the  first  passage 
to  a preaching  of  Christ  through  Noah  at  the  time  of  the  flood  is  artificial, 
breaks  the  historic  connection  (aire&avev  . . . &avarw$ds  . . . (cooironi^eh 
ir yev/xan  . . . iKrjpu^ev  . . . iropev&els  els  ovpavov ),  and  is  set  aside  by  ch.  4 : 6, 
which  explains  and  generalizes  the  statement  of  the  former  passage.  Baur 
(p.  291)  understands  the  Trvevfxara  tv  <pv\aKf}  to  be  the  fallen  angels  (comp. 
2 Pet.  2:4;  Gen.  6 : 1),  and  the  preaching  of  Christ  an  announcement  of  the 
judgment.  But  in  this  case  we  should  have  to  distinguish  between  the 
iK^ipv^ev,  1 Pet.  3 : 9,  and  the  evrryye\io r&rj  in  4 : 6.  The  latter  always  means 
preaching  the  gospel,  which  is  a savor  of  life  unto  life  to  believers,  and  a 
savor  of  death  unto  death  to  unbelievers. 


520 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


flict  with  the  Judaizing  tendency;  the  four  Epistles  of  the  cap- 
tivity ; and  the  Pastoral  Epistles.  These  groups  present  ae 
many  phases  of  development  of  his  system  and  discuss  different 
questions  with  appropriate  variations  of  style,  hut  they  are  ani- 
mated by  the  same  spirit,  and  bear  the  marks  of  the  same  pro- 
found and  comprehensive  genius. 

Paul  is  the  pioneer  of  Christian  theology.  He  alone  among 
the  apostles  had  received  a learned  rabbinical  education  and 
was  skilled  in  logical  and  dialectical  argument.  But  his  logic  is 
vitalized  and  set  on  fire.  His  theology  springs  from  his  heart 
as  well  as  from  his  brain ; it  is  the  result  of  his  conversion,  and 
all  aglow  with  the  love  of  Christ ; his  scholasticism  is  warmed 
and  deepened  by  mysticism,  and  his  mysticism  is  regulated  and 
sobered  by  scholasticism ; the  religious  and  moral  elements, 
dogmatics,  and  ethics,  are  blended  into  a harmonious  whole. 
Out  of  the  depths  of  his  personal  experience,  and  in  conflict 
with  the  Judaizing  contraction  and  the  Gnostic  evaporation  of 
the  gospel  he  elaborated  the  fullest  scheme  of  Christian  doctrine 
which  we  possess  from  apostolic  pens.  It  is  essentially  soterio- 
logical,  or  a system  of  the  way  of  salvation.  It  goes  far  beyond 
the  teaching  of  James  and  Peter,  and  yet  is  only  a consistent 
development  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  in  the  Gospels.1 

The  Central  Idea. 

Paul’s  personal  experience  embraced  intense  fanaticism  for 
Judaism,  and  a more  intense  enthusiasm  for  Christianity.  It 
was  first  an  unavailing  struggle  of  legalism  towards  human 
righteousness  by  works  of  the  law,  and  then  the  apprehension 

1 Dr.  Baur,  who  was  formerly  disposed  to  make  Paul  the  founder  of  Chris- 
tian universalism.  admits  in  his  last  elaboration  of  the  Pauline  system  (N. 
T.liche  TJieol .,  p.  128),  that  “ Paul  only  expressed  to  the  consciousness  what  in 
itself,  in  principle  and  actually,  or  by  implication,  was  contained  already  in  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus  (was  an  sich , principiell  und  thatsdchlich , oder  implicit e schon 
in  der  Lehre  Jesu  enthalten  wary  * Pressense  misstates  here  Baur’s  position, 
but  himself  correctly  calls  Paul’s  doctrine  “ as  a whole  and  in  all  its  parts,  the 
logical  deduction  and  development  of  the  teaching  of  the  Master”  (Apost.  Era , 
p.  255). 


§ 71.  TIIE  GENTILE  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY.  527 


of  divine  righteousness  by  faith  in  Christ.  This  dualism  is  re 
fleeted  in  his  theology.  The  idea  of  righteousness  or  conformity 
to  God’s  holy  will  is  the  connecting  link  between  the  Jewish 
Saul  and  the  Christian  Paul.  Law  and  works,  was  the  motto  of 
the  self-righteous  pupil  of  Moses ; gospel  and  faith,  the  motto 
of  the  humble  disciple  of  Jesus.  He  is  the  emancipator  of  the 
Christian  consciousness  from  the  oppressive  bondage  of  legalism 
and  bigotry,  and  the  champion  of  freedom  and  catholicity. 
Paul’s  gospel  is  emphatically  the  gospel  of  saving  faith,  the 
gospel  of  evangelical  freedom,  the  gospel  of  universalism,  cen- 
tring in  the  person  and  work  of  Christ  and  conditioned  by 
union  wTitli  Christ.  He  determined  to  know  nothing  but  Christ 
and  him  crucified ; but  this  included  all — it  is  the  soul  of  his 
theology.  The  Christ  who  died  is  the  Christ  who  was  raised 
again  and  ever  lives  as  Lord  and  Saviour,  and  wTas  made  unto 
us  wisdom  from  God,  and  righteousness,  and  sanctification,  and 
redemption.1  A dead  Christ  would  be  the  grave  of  all  our 
hopes,  and  the  gospel  of  a dead  Saviour  a wretched  delusion. 
“ If  Christ  has  not  been  raised  then  is  our  preaching  vain,  your 
faith  also  is  vain.” 2 His  death  becomes  available  only  through 
his  resurrection.  Paul  puts  the  two  facts  together  in  the  com- 
prehensive statement : “ Christ  delivered  up  for  our  trespasses, 
and  raised  for  our  justification.”  3 He  is  a conditional  univer- 
salist ; he  teaches  the  universal  need  of  salvation,  and  the  divine 
intention  and  provision  for  a universal  salvation,  but  the  actual 
salvation  of  each  man  depends  upon  his  faith  or  personal  accept- 
ance and  appropriation  of  Christ.  His  doctrinal  system,  then, 
turns  on  the  great  antithesis  of  sin  and  grace.  Before  Christ 
and  out  of  Christ  is  the  reign  of  sin  and  death ; after  Christ 
and  in  Christ  is  the  reign  of  righteousness  and  life. 

We  now  proceed  to  an  outline  of  the  leading  features  of  his 
theology  as  set  forth  in  the  order  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Homans, 
the  most  methodical  and  complete  of  his  writings.  Its  central 

1 1 Cor.  1:30;  2:2.  2 1 Cor.  15  : 13. 

3 Rom.  4 : 23.  The  first  5 id  is  retrospective,  the  second  prospective  : for  the 

destruction  of  sin  and  for  the  procurement  of  righteousness. 


528 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


thought  is : The  Gospel  of  Christy  a power  of  God  for  the  salva- 
tion of  all  men , Jew  and  Gentile 

I.  Tiie  Universal  Need  of  Salvation. — It  arises  from  the 
fall  of  Adam  and  the  whole  human  race,  which  was  included  in 
him  as  the  tree  is  included  in  the  seed,  so  that  his  one  act  of 
disobedience  brought  sin  and  death  upon  the  whole  posterity. 
Paul  proves  the  depravity  of  Gentiles  and  Jews  without  excep- 
tion to  the  extent  that  they  are  absolutely  unable  to  attain  to 
righteousness  and  to  save  themselves.  “There  is  none  right- 
eous, no,  not  one.”  They  are  all  under  the  dominion  of  sin  and 
under  the  sentence  of  condemnation.2  He  recognizes  indeed, 
even  among  the  heathen,  the  remaining  good  elements  of  reason 
and  conscience,3  which  are  the  connecting  links  for  the  regener- 
ating work  of  divine  grace ; but  for  this  very  reason  they  are 
inexcusable,  as  they  sin  against  better  knowledge.  There  is  a 
conflict  between  the  higher  and  the  lower  nature  in  man  (the 
vow,  which  tends  to  God  who  gave  it,  and  the  o-apf,  which 
tends  to  sin),  and  this  conflict  is  stimulated  and  brought  to  a 
crisis  by  the  law  of  God ; but  this  conflict,  owing  to  the  weak- 
ness of  our  carnal,  fallen,  depraved  nature,  ends  in  defeat  and 
despair  till  the  renewing  grace  of  Christ  emancipates  us  from 
the  curse  and  bondage  of  sin  and  gives  us  liberty  and  victory. 
In  the  seventh  chapter  of  the  Homans,  Paul  gives  from  his  per- 
sonal experience  a most  remarkable  and  truthful  description  of 
the  religious  history  of  man  from  the  natural  or  heathen  state 
of  carnal  security  (without  the  law,  ver.  7-9)  to  the  Jewish  state 
under  the  law  which  calls  out  sin  from  its  hidden  recess,  reveals 
its  true  character,  and  awakens  the  sense  of  the  wretchedness  of 
slavery  under  sin  (ver.  10-25),  but  in  this  very  way  prepares  the 
way  for  the  Christian  state  of  freedom  (ver.  24  and  ch.  8).4 

1 1 : 17  : Hvvaixis  &eoD  els  (rcorrjplav  nravrl  r<p  'triffrevovr :,  ’I ovdalcv  re  [ irpunoy ] 
Ka\  ’'EWrjvi.  Other  pregnant  passages  in  which  Paul  summarizes  his  dogmatics 
and  ethics,  are  Rom.  1 : 16,  17  : 3 : 21-26  ; 4 : 25  ; 11  : 32  ; 1 Cor.  15  : 22 ; Gal. 
3:22;  Tit.  3:3-7. 

9 Rom.  1 : 18  ; 3 : 20.  First  the  depravity  of  the  heathen,  then  that  of  the 
Jews  (2:1,  comp.  ver.  17). 

3 Rom.  1 : 18-21 ; 2 : 14-16  ; comp.  Acts  17  : 28. 

4 The  Augustinian  application  of  this  conflict  to  the  regenerate  state,  in- 


§ 71.  THE  GENTILE  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY.  529 


IT.  The  Divine  Intention  and  Provision  of  Universal  Sal* 
vation. — God  sincerely  wills  (^eAet)  that  all  men,  even  the  great- 
est of  sinners,  should  be  saved,  and  come  to  the  knowledge  of 
truth  through  Christ,  who  gave  himself  a ransom  for  all.1  The 
extent  of  Christ’s  righteousness  and  life  is  as  universal  as  the 
extent  of  Adam’s  sin  and  death,  and  its  intensive  power  is  even 
greater.  The  first  and  the  second  Adam  are  perfectly  parallel 
by  contrast  in  their  representative  character,  but  Christ  is  much 
stronger  and  remains  victor  of  the  field,  having  slain  sin  and  death, 
and  living  for  ever  as  the  prince  of  life.  Where  sin  abounds 
there  grace  superabounds.  As  through  the  first  Adam  sin  (as 
a pervading  force)  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  through 
sin,  and  thus  death  passed  unto  all  men,  inasmuch  as  they  all 
sinned  (in  Adam  generically  and  potentially,  and  by  actual  trans- 
gression individually)  ; so  much  more  through  Christ,  the  second 
Adam,  righteousness  entered  into  the  world  and  life  through 
righteousness,  and  thus  righteousness  passed  unto  all  men  on 
condition  of  faith  by  which  we  partake  of  his  righteousness.2 

volves  the  seventh  chapter  in  contradiction  with  chapters  6 and  8,  and  oblit- 
erates the  distinction  between  the  regenerate  and  the  unregenerate  state. 
Augustine  understood  that  chapter  better  in  his  earlier  years,  before  the 
Pelagian  controversy  drove  him  to  such  an  extreme  view*  of  total  depravity  as 
destroys  all  freedom  and  responsibility.  We  see  here  the  difference  between 
an  inspired  apostle  and  an  enlightened  theologian.  The  chief  object  of 
chapter  7 is  to  show  that  the  law  cannot  sanctify  anymore  than  it  can  justify 
(ch.  3),  and  that  the  legal  conflict  with  the  sinful  flesh  ends  in  total  failure. 
Paul  always  uses  here  vovs  for  the  higher  principle  in  man  (including  reason 
and  conscience) ; while  in  chapter  8.  where  he  speaks  of  the  regenerate  man, 
he  uses  Trvevna,  which  is  the  vovs  sanctified  and  enlightened  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  In  verse  25  he  indeed  alludes  to  the  regenerate  state  by  way  of  antici- 
pation and  as  an  immediate  answer  to  the  preceding  cry  for  redemption  ; but 
from  this  expression  of  thanks  he  once  more  points  back  with  apa  ovv  to  the 
previous  state  of  bondage  before  he  enters  more  fully  with  apa  vvv  into  the 
state  of  freedom. 

1 1 Tim.  1 : 15  ; 2 : 4,  6 ; Tit.  2:11.  Particularistic  restrictions  of  “all”  in 
these  passages  are  arbitrary.  The  same  doctrine  is  taught  2 Pet.  3 : 9,  and 
John  3:16;  1 John  2 : 2.  The  last  passage  is  as  clear  as  the  sun  : “Christ 
is  the  propitiation  (iKaanSs)  for  our  sins  ; and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for 
the  whole  world  ” ( ov  /uiovov  . . . a\\a  Kal  irepl  o\ov  rod  ic6<rnov). 

2 Rom.  5 : 12-21;  1 Cor.  15 : 21,  22.  The  iravres  and  the  ol  iroMol  (which 
is  equivalent  to  iravres  and  opposed,  not  to  a few,  but  to  the  one)  in  the  second 
clause  referring  to  the  second  Adam,  is  as  comprehensive  and  unlimited  as  in 


530 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


God  shut  up  all  men  in  disobedience,  that  he  might  have  merc^ 
upon  all  that  believe.1 

(1.)  The  preparation  for  this  salvation  was  the  promise  and  the 
law  of  the  Old  dispensation.  The  promise  given  to  Abraham 
and  the  patriarchs  is  prior  to  the  law,  and  not  set  aside  by  the 
law ; it  contained  the  germ  and  the  pledge  of  salvation,  and  Abra- 
ham stands  out  as  the  father  of  the  faithful,  who  was  justified 
by  faith  even  before  he  received  circumcision  as  a 6ign  and 
seal.  The  law  came  in  besides,  or  between  the  promise  and 
the  gospel  in  order  to  develop  the  disease  of  sin,  to  reveal  its 
true  character  as  a transgression  of  the  divine  will,  and  thus 
to  excite  the  sense  of  the  need  of  salvation.  The  law  is  in  itself 
holy  and  good,  but  cannot  give  life ; it  commands  and  threat- 
ens, but  gives  no  power  to  fulfil ; it  cannot  renew  the  flesh,  that 
is,  the  depraved,  sinful  nature  of  man ; it  can  neither  justify 
nor  sanctify,  but  it  brings  the  knowledge  of  sin,  and  by  its  dis- 
cipline it  prepares  men  for  the  freedom  of  Christ,  as  a school- 
master prepares  children  for  independent  manhood.2 

(2.)  The  salvation  itself  is  comprehended  in  the  person  and 
work  of  Christ.  It  was  accomplished  in  the  fulness  of  the  time 
by  the  sinless  life,  the  atoning  death,  and  the  glorious  resurrection 
and  exaltation  of  Christ,  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  who  appeared 
in  the  likeness  of  the  flesh  of  sin  and  as  an  offering  for  sin,  and 
thus  procured  for  us  pardon,  peace,  and  reconciliation.  “ God 
spared  not  his  own  Son,  but  delivered  him  up  for  us  all.”  This 
is  the  greatest  gift  of  the  eternal  love  of  the  Father  for  his 
creatures.  The  Son  of  God,  prompted  by  the  same  infinite  love, 

the  first  clause.  The  English  Version  weakens  the  force  of  ot  iroWol , and 
limits  the  number  by  omitting  the  article.  The  iroAA&J  paWov  (Rom.  5 : 15, 
17)  predicated  of  Christ’s  saving  grace,  is  not  a numerical,  nor  a logical,  but  a 
dynamic  plus,  indicating  a higher  degree  of  efficacy,  inasmuch  as  Christ  brought 
far  greater  blessings  than  we  lost  in  Adam. 

1 Rom.  11  : 32;  Gal.  3 : 22.  These  passages  contain  the  briefest  statement 
of  the  sad  mystery  of  the  fall  cleared  up  by  the  blessed  mystery  of  redemp- 
tion. In  the  first  passage  the  masculine  is  used  ( rovs  irdmas ),  in  the  second 
the  neuter  (rd  irdvra ),  and  the  application  is  confined  to  believers  ( tois 
*urTcvov<riv). 

* Rom.  chs.  3-7  ; Gal  chs.  2-4  ; especially  Rom.  3 : 20  ; 5:20;  Gal.  3 : 24. 


§ 71.  THE  GENTILE  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY.  531 


laid  aside  his  divine  glory  and  mode  of  existence,  emptied  himself, 
exchanged  the  form  of  God  for  the  form  of  a servant,  humbled 
himself  and  became  obedient,  even  unto  the  death  of  the  cross. 
Though  he  was  rich,  being  equal  with  God,  yet  for  our  sakes 
he  became  poor,  that  we  through  his  poverty  might  become  rich. 
In  reward  for  his  active  and  passive  obedience  God  exalted  him 
and  gave  him  a name  above  every  name,  that  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  every  knee  should  bow  and  every  tongue  confess  that  he 
is  Lord.1 

Formerly  the  cross  of  Christ  had  been  to  the  carnal  Messianic 
expectations  and  self-righteousness  of  Paul,  as  well  as  of  other 
Jews,  the  greatest  stumbling-block,  as  it  was  the  height  of  folly 
to  the  worldly  wisdom  of  the  heathen  mind.2  But  the  heav- 
enly vision  of  the  glory  of  Jesus  at  Damascus  unlocked  the 
key  for  the  understanding  of  this  mystery,  and  it  was  confirmed 
by  the  primitive  apostolic  tradition,3  and  by  his  personal  expe- 
rience of  the  failure  of  the  law  and  the  power  of  the  gospel  to 
give  peace  to  his  troubled  conscience.  The  death  of  Christ 
appeared  to  him  now  as  the  divinely  appointed  means  for  pro- 
curing righteousness.  It  is  the  device  of  infinite  wisdom  and 
love  to  reconcile  the  conflicting  claims  of  justice  and  mercy 
whereby  God  could  justify  the  sinner  and  yet  remain  just  him- 
self.4 Christ,  who  knew  no  sin,  became  sin  for  us  that  we  might 
become  righteousness  of  God  in  him.  He  died  in  the  place 
and  for  the  benefit  (vi rep,  7 repi)  of  sinners  and  enemies,  so  that 
his  death  has  a universal  significance.  If  one  died  for  all,  they 
all  died.5  He  offered  his  spotless  and  holy  life  as  a ransom 

1 Rom.  8 : 3,  32  ; Phil.  2 : 6-11  ; 2 Cor.  8:9.  On  the  Christology  of  Paul, 
gee  the  Notes  at  the  end  of  this  section. 

9 Gal.  5 : 11  ; 6 : 12.  1 Cor.  1 : 23. 

3 1 Cor.  15:3:  “I  delivered  unto  you  first  of  all  that  which  I also  received, 
that  Christ  died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  Scriptures.” 

4 Rom.  3:26:  fls  rb  eh>at  avrbv  blnaiov  teal  biKatovvra  rbv  4k  nloreus  Xpurrou, 
Bengel  calls  this  u summum  paradoxon  evangelicumf 

5 2 Cor.  5 : 15  : on  eft  uirep  it&vtcov  airi&avev,  &pa  ol  iravres  inti&avov.  Mark 
the  aorist.  The  prepositions  inrip  (used  of  persons)  and  it epi  (of  things,  but 
also  of  persons)  express  the  idea  of  benefit,  but  often  in  close  connection  with 
the  idea  of  vicariousness  (hvr[).  Comp.  Gal.  1 : 4 ; 3 : 13  ; Rom.  4 : 25  ; 5 : 6,  eta 


532 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


(Xvrpov)  or  price  (ri/irj)  for  our  sins,  and  tlius  effected  our  re 
demption  (anoXvTpcoais;),  as  prisoners  of  war  are  redeemed  by 
the  payment  of  an  equivalent.  His  death,  therefore,  is  a vh 
carious  sacrifice,  an  atonement,  an  expiation  or  propitiation 
([XacrpLos,  i\acrT7jpLov , sacrificium  expiatorium)  for  the  sins  of 
the  whole  world,  and  secured  full  and  final  remission  (a<£e<™?) 
and  reconciliation  between  God  and  man  {KaraWa^r}).  This 
the  Mosaic  law  and  sacrifices  could  not  accomplish.  They  could 
only  keep  alive  and  deepen  the  sense  of  the  necessity  of  an 
atonement.  If  righteousness  came  by  the  law,  Christ’s  death 
would  be  needless  and  fruitless.  His  death  removes  not  only 
the  guilt  of  sin,  but  it  destroyed  also  its  power  and  dominion. 
Hence  the  great  stress  Paul  laid  on  the  preaching  of  the  cross 
(6  Xoyo?  tov  aravpov ),  in  which  alone  he  would  glory.1 11 

This  rich  doctrine  of  the  atonement  which  pervades  the 
Pauline  Epistles  is  only  a legitimate  expansion  of  the  word  of 
Christ  that  he  would  give  his  life  as  a ransom  for  sinners  and 
shed  his  blood  for  the  remission  of  sins. 

(3.)  While  Christ  accomplished  the  salvation,  the  Holy  Spirit 
appropriates  it  to  the  believer.  The  Spirit  is  the  religious  and 
moral  principle  of  the  new  life.  Emanating  from  God,  he 
dwells  in  the  Christian  as  a renewing,  sanctifying,  comforting 
energy,  as  the  higher  conscience,  as  a divine  guide  and  monitor. 
He  mediates  between  Christ  and  the  church  as  Christ  medi- 
ates between  God  and  the  world  ; he  is  the  divine  revealer  of 
Christ  to  the  individual  consciousness  and  the  source  of  all 
graces  (^aptcryaara)  through  which  the  new  life  manifests  itself. 

1 Rom.  3 : 21-26  ; 5 : 6-10;  8 : 32  ; 1 Cor.  1 : 17,  18  ; 2 : 2 ; 6 : 20 ; 7 : 23 ; 

11  : 24  ; 15  : 3;  2 Cor.  5 : 15, 18,  19,  21 ; Gal.  1 : 4 ; 2 : 11  sqq.  ; 3 : 13;  6:  14, 
etc.  Comp.  Weiss,  p.  302;  Pfleiderer,  p.  7;  Baur  (W.  T.  Theol.,  p.  156), 
Holsten  and  Pfleiderer  (in  his  able  introduction)  regard  the  atoning  death  of 
Christ  as  the  kernel  of  Paul’s  theology,  and  Holsten  promises  to  develop  the 
whole  system  from  this  idea  in  his  new  work,  Das  Evangelium  des  Paidm, 
of  which  the  first  part  appeared  in  1880.  But  they  deny  the  objective  char- 
acter of  the  revelation  at  Damascus,  and  resolve  it  into  a subjective  moral 
struggle  and  a dialectical  process  of  reflection  and  reasoning.  Luther  passed 
through  a similar  moral  conflict  and  reached  the  same  conclusion,  but  on  the 
basis  of  the  Scriptures  and  with  the  aid  of  the  divine  Spirit. 


§ 71.  THE  GENTILE  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY.  533 

“ Christ  in  us  ” is  equivalent  to  having  the  “ Spirit  of  Christ.” 
It  is  only  by  the  inward  revelation  of  the  Spirit  that  we  can 
call  Christ  our  Lord  and  Saviour,  and  God  our  Father  ; by  the 
Spirit  the  love  of  God  is  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts;  the  Spirit 
works  in  us  faith  and  all  virtues ; it  is  the  Spirit  who  trans- 
forms even  the  body  of  the  believer  into  a holy  temple  ; those 
who  are  led  by  the  Spirit  are  the  sons  of  God  and  heirs  of  sal- 
vation ; it  is  by  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus  that 
we  are  made  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death  and  are  able  to 
walk  in  newness  of  life.  Where  the  Spirit  of  God  is  there  is 
true  liberty.1 

(4.)  There  is,  then,  a threefold  cause  of  our  salvation : the 
Father  who  sends  his  Son,  the  Son  who  procures  salvation,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  who  applies  it  to  the  believer.  This  threefold 
agency  is  set  forth  in  the  benediction,  which  comprehends  all 
divine  blessings : “ the  grace  (j(apLS:)  the  ^or(l  Jesus  Christ, 
and  the  love  (aydirrj)  of  God,  and  the  communion  (/ colvcovlo ) of 
the  Holy  Spirit.” 2 This  is  Paul’s  practical  view  of  the  Holy 
Trinity  as  revealed  in  the  gospel.  The  grace  of  Christ  is  men- 
tioned first  because  in  it  is  exhibited  to  us  the  love  of  the 
Father  in  its  highest  aspect  as  a saving  power ; to  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  ascribed  the  communion  because  he  is  the  bond  of 
union  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  between  Christ  and  the 
believer,  and  between  the  believers  as  members  of  one  brother- 
hood of  the  redeemed. 

To  this  divine  trinity  corresponds,  we  may  say,  the  human 
trinity  of  Christian  graces  : faith,  hope,  love.3 

1 The  passages  in  whieh  the  Holy  Spirit  is  mentioned  are  very  numerous, 
especially  in  the  Thessalonians,  Romans,  Corinthians,  Galatians,  and  Ephe- 
sians. Comp.  Rom.  5:5;  7:6;  8:2,  5,  9,  11,  14,  15,  16,  26;  1 Cor.  2. 

4 sqq. ; 3:16;  6 : 11,  17,  19  ; 12  : 3-16  ; 2 Cor.  1 : 12  ; 2:7;  Gal.  4:6;  5 : 
16,  22,  25;  Eph.  1 : 17 ; 2:2;  4 : 23,  30  ; 5 : 18;  1 Thess.  1 : 5,  6;  4:8; 

5 : 19,  23 ; 2 Thess.  2 : 2,  8,  13  ; 2 Tim.  1 : 7,  14;  Tit.  3 : 5. 

* The  concluding  verse  in  the  second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians ; comp. 
Eph.  2 : 18,  22 ; 4 : 4-6,  where  God  the  Father,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  are  mentioned  as  distinct  personalities,  if  we  may  use  this 
unsatisfactory  yet  indispensable  term. 

3 1 Cor.  13  : 13. 


534 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


III.  The  Order  of  Salvation. — (1.)  Salvation  has  its  roots 
in  the  eternal  counsel  of  God,  his  foreknowledge  ( TrpoyvGoais ), 
and  his  foreordination  ( irpoopio-fio 9,  Trpo&eaLs)  ; the  former  an 
act  of  his  omniscient  intellect,  the  latter  of  his  omnipotent 
will.  Logically,  foreknowledge  precedes  foreordination,  but 
in  reality  both  coincide  and  are  simultaneous  in  the  divine 
mind,  in  which  there  is  no  before  nor  after.1 2 

Paul  undoubtedly  teaches  an  eternal  election  by  the  sovereign 
grace  of  God,  that  is  an  unconditioned  and  unchangeable  predes- 
tination of  his  children  to  holiness  and  salvation  in  and  through 
his  Son  Jesus  Christ.3  He  thus  cuts  off  all  human  merit,  and 
plants  the  salvation  upon  an  immovable  rock.  But  he  does 
not  thereby  exclude  human  freedom  and  responsibility ; on  the 
contrary,  he  includes  them  as  elements  in  the  divine  plan,  and 
boldly  puts  them  together.3  Hence  he  exhorts  and  warns  men 
as  if  salvation  might  be  gained  or  lost  by  their  effort.  Those 
who  are  lost,  are  lost  by  their  own  unbelief.  Perdition  is  the 
righteous  judgment  for  sin  unrepented  of  and  persisted  in.  It 
is  a strange  misunderstanding  to  make  Paul  either  a fatalist  or  a 
particularist ; he  is  the  strongest  opponent  of  blind  necessity  and 
of  Jewish  particularism,  even  in  the  ninth  chapter  of  Romans. 
But  he  aims  at  no  philosophical  solution  of  a problem  which 
the  finite  understanding  of  man  cannot  settle ; he  contents 
himself  with  asserting  its  divine  and  human  aspects,  the  reli- 

1 Rom.  8 : 29  : “ Whom  he  foreknew  (ous  irpoiyvui),  he  also  foreordained 
(irpodopio-ev),  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son.”  The  verb  npoyivcvaKoo 
occurs  in  the  New  Test,  five  times  (Rom.  8 : 29  ; 11  : 1,  2 ; Acts  26  : 5 ; 1 Pet. 
1 : 20),  the  noun  TrpSyuuats  twice  (Acts  2 : 23  ; 1 Pet.  1 : 2),  always,  as  in  clas- 
sical Greek,  in  the  sense  of  previous  knowledge  (not  election).  The  verb 
it poopifa  occurs  six  times,  and  means  always  to  foreordain,  to  determine  be- 
fore. The  words  c/cAeyw  and  e/cAt-yo^at,  ifcAoyf),  4k\€kt6s  occur  much  more 
frequently,  mostly  with  reference  to  eternal  choice  or  election.  See  note 
below. 

2 Eph.  1:4:  “ Even  as  he  chose  us  in  Christ  (4^e\e^aro  fipcis  4v  avr£)  be- 
fore the  foundation  of  the  world,  that  we  should  be  holy  and  without  blemish 
before  him  in  love  : having  foreordained  us  unto  adoption  as  sons  ( Trpooplaas 
i)p.as  els  vlo&eaiav)  through  Jesus  Christ  unto  himself,  according  to  the  good 
pleasure  of  bis  will.” 

3 Phil.  2 : 12,  13.  Comp,  the  ninth  chapter  of  Romans  with  the  tenth. 


§ 71.  TIIE  GENTILE  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY.  635 


gious  and  etliical  view,  the  absolute  sovereignty  of  God  and  the 
relative  freedom  of  man,  the  free  gift  of  salvation  and  the  just 
punishment  for  neglecting  it.  Christian  experience  includes 
both  truths,  and  we  find  no  contradiction  in  praying  as  if  all 
depended  on  God,  and  in  working  as  if  all  depended  on  man. 
This  is  Pauline  theology  and  practice. 

Foreknowledge  and  foreordination  are  the  eternal  background 
of  salvation : call,  justification,  sanctification,  and  glorification 
mark  the  progressive  steps  in  the  time  of  execution,  and  of  the 
personal  application  of  salvation.1 

(2.)  The  call  (/tXrJo-t?)  proceeds  from  God  the  Father  through 
the  preaching  of  the  gospel  salvation  which  is  sincerely  offered 
to  all.  Faith  comes  from  preaching,  preaching  from  preachers, 
and  the  preachers  from  God  who  sends  them.2 * 

The  human  act  which  corresponds  to  the  divine  call  is  the  con- 
version (fierdvoia)  of  the  sinner ; and  this  includes  repentance 
or  turning  away  from  sin,  and  faith  or  turning  to  Christ,  under 
the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  who  acts  through  the  word.5 
The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  objective  principle  of  the  new  life  of  the 
Christian.  Faith  is  the  free  gift  of  God,  and  at  the  same  time 
the  highest  act  of  man.  It  is  unbounded  trust  in  Christ,  and 
the  organ  by  which  we  apprehend  him,  his  very  life  and  bene- 
fits, and  become  as  it  were  identified  with  him,  or  mystically 
incorporated  with  him.4 

1 Rom.  8 : 30  : “ Whom  he  foreordained  them  he  also  called  (fKa\c<rev)  : and 
whom  he  called  them  he  also  justified  (eSiKaiaae^  which  is  also  the  beginning 
of  sanctification),  and  whom  he  justified,  them  he  also  gloi'ified  (e’S^ao-tv).” 
The  proleptic  aorist  is  used  for  the  future  to  indicate  the  absolute  certainty 
that  God  will  carry  out  his  gracious  design  to  the  glorious  consummation. 

2 Rom.  10  : 14,  15.  A chain  of  abridged  syllogisms  ( soi'ites ) by  which  Paul 
reasons  back  from  effect  to  cause  till  he  reaches  the  first  link  in  the  chain. 
On  the  K\rj<ns  ( vocatio ) see  Rom.  11  : 29  ; 1 Cor.  1 : 26  ; 7 : 20;  Gal.  1:6; 
Eph.  1 : 18  ; 4 : 14 ; Phil.  3 : 14,  etc.  The  verb  tea \ca>  is  of  very  frequent 
occurrence  in  the  Gospels  and  Epistles. 

s Rom.  2 : 4 ; 2 Cor  7 : 9,  10  ; 2 Tim.  2 : 25. 

4 Baur  (p.  154)  distinguishes  five  conceptions  of  irlaris  (from  ird&eiv) : 1st, 
conviction  in  general,  a theoretical  belief  or  assent.  In  this  sense  it  does  not 
occur  in  Paul,  but  in  James  1 : 17.  2d,  conviction  of  the  invisible  and  super- 

natural ; 2 Cor.  5 : 7,  iriaris  as  distinct  from  eTSos.  3d,  religious  conviction, 


536 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


(3.)  J ustification  ( &i/caL(ticrLs ?)  is  the  next  step.  This  is  a vital 
doctrine  in  Paul’s  system  and  forms  the  connecting  link  as  well 
as  the  division  line  between  the  Jewish  and  the  Christian  period 
of  his  life.  It  was  with  him  always  a burning  life-question.  As 
a Jew  he  sought  righteousness  by  works  of  the  law,  honestly 
and  earnestly,  but  in  vain  ; as  a Christian  he  found  it,  as  a free 
gift  of  grace,  by  faith  in  Christ.  Righteousness  ( Stfccuoavv? /), 
as  applied  to  man,  is  the  normal  relation  of  man  to  the  holy 
will  of  God  as  expressed  in  his  revealed  law,  which  requires 
supreme  love  to  God  and  love  to  our  neighbor ; it  is  the  moral 
and  religious  ideal,  and  carries  in  itself  the  divine  favor  and  the 
highest  happiness.  It  is  the  very  end  for  which  man  was 
made ; he  is  to  be  conformed  to  God  who  is  absolutely  holy  and 
righteous.  To  be  god-like  is  the  highest  conception  of  human 
perfection  and  bliss. 

But  there  are  two  kinds  of  righteousness,  or  rather  two  ways 
of  seeking  it : one  of  the  law,  and  sought  by  works  of  the  law ; 
but  this  is  imaginary,  at  best  very  defective,  and  cannot  stand 
before  God ; and  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  or  the  righteous' 
ness  of  faith,  which  is  freely  communicated  to  the  believer  and 
accepted  by  God.  Justification  is  the  act  of  God  by  which  he 
puts  the  repenting  sinner  in  possession  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ.  It  is  the  reverse  of  condemnation  ; it  implies  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  and  the  imputation  of  Christ’s  righteousness.  It  is 
based  upon  the  atoning  sacrifice  of  Christ  and  conditioned  by 
faith,  as  the  subjective  organ  of  apprehending  and  appropriating 
Christ  with  all  his  benefits.  We  are  therefore  justified  by  grace 
alone  through  faith  alone ; yet  faith  remains  not  alone,  but  is 
ever  fruitful  of  good  works. 

The  result  of  justification  is  peace  {elprjvrf)  with  God,  and  the 

1 Cor.  2 : 5 ; 2 Cor.  1 : 24,  etc.  4th,  trust  in  God,  Rom.  4 : 17-21.  5th,  trust 
in  Christ,  or  the  specific  Christian  faith,  Rom.  3 : 22  ; 1 Cor.  15  : 14  ; Gal.  1 : 23, 
and  always  where  justifying  faith  is  meant.  Weiss  (p.  316)  defines  the  Pauline 
idea  of  justifying  faith  as  “ the  very  opposite  of  all  the  works  required  by  the 
law  ; it  is  no  human  performance,  but,  on  the  contrary,  an  abandonment  of 
all  work  of  our  own.  an  unconditional  reliance  on  God  who  justifies,  or  on 
Christ  as  the  Mediator  of  salvation.’*  But  this  is  only  the  receptive  side  of 
faith,  it  has  an  active  side  as  well,  irlons  is  tyepyov/xcyrt  Si ’ aydmjs.  See  below. 


§ 71.  THE  GENTILE  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY.  537 


state  of  adoption  (vio^eo-la),  and  this  implies  also  the  heirship 
(fcX^pcvo/jua)  of  eternal  life.  “ The  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness 
with  our  spirit  that  we  are  children  of  God : and  if  children, 
then  heirs;  heirs  of  God,  and  joint-heirs  with  Christ;  if  so  be 
Xhat  we  suffer  with  him,  that  we  may  be  also  glorified  with  him.”  1 

The  root  of  Paul’s  theory  of  justification  is  found  in  the 
teaching  of  Christ : he  requires  from  his  disciples  a far  better 
righteousness  than  the  legal  righteousness  of  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees,  as  a condition  of  entering  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
namely,  the  righteousness  of  God ; he  holds  up  this  righteous- 
ness of  God  as  the  first  object  to  be  sought ; and  teaches  that  it 
can  only  be  obtained  by  faith,  which  he  everywhere  presents  as 
the  one  and  only  condition  of  salvation  on  the  part  of  man.2 

(4.)  Sanctification  (ayiaa/ios).3  The  divine  act  of  justification 
is  inseparable  from  the  conversion  and  renewal  of  the  sinner. 
It  affects  the  will  and  conduct  as  well  as  the  feeling.  Although 
gratuitous,  it  is  not  unconditional.  It  is  of  necessity  the  begin- 
ning of  sanctification,  the  birth  into  a new  life  which  is  to  grow 
unto  full  manhood.  We  are  not  justified  outside  of  Christ,  but 
only  in  Christ  by  a living  faith,  which  unites  us  with  him  in  his 
death  unto  sin  and  resurrection  unto  holiness.  Faith  is  opera- 
tive in  love  and  must  produce  good  works  as  the  inevitable 
proof  of  its  existence.  Without  love,  the  greatest  of  Christian 
graces,  even  the  strongest  faith  would  be  but  “ sounding  brass 
or  clanging  cymbal.” 4 

1 Rom.  5:1;  8 : 15-17 ; Gal.  4 : 5-7.  If  we  read  in  Rom.  5 : 1 (with  the 
oldest  authorities)  the  hortative  subjunctive  ex&VXf*'>  “let  us  have”  (instead  of 
the  indicative  exoficv,  “we  have”),  peace  is  represented  as  a blessing  which 
we  should  grasp  and  fully  enjoy — an  exhortation  well  suited  for  Judaizing  and 
gloomy  Christians  who  groan  under  legal  bondage.  On  justification  see  the 
notes  below. 

2 Matt.  5 : 20  ; 6:33;  9:22,29;  17:20;  Markll:22;  16:16;  Luke5:50; 
18  : 10-14  ; John  3 : 16.  17  ; 6 : 47,  etc. 

3 Comp.  Rom.  6 : 19,  22 ; 1 Cor.  1 : 30 ; 1 Thess.  4 : 3,  4,  7 ; 2 Thess.  2 : 13. 

4 1 Cor.  13:  1,  2.  Luther’s  famous  description  of  faith  (in  his  Preface  to 
Romans),  as  “ a lively,  busy,  mighty  thing  that  waits  not  for  work,  but  is  ever 
working,  and  is  as  inseparable  from  love  as  light  is  from  heat,”  is  in  the  very 
spirit  of  Paul,  and  a sufficient  reply  to  the  slander  brought  against  the  doctrine 
of  justification  by  faith  as  being  antinomian  in  its  tendency. 


538 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Sanctification  is  not  a single  act,  like  justification,  but  a pro 
cess.  It  is  a continuous  growth  of  the  whole  inner  man  in  hoik 
ness  from  the  moment  of  conversion  and  justification  to  the 
reappearance  of  Jesus  Christ  in  glory.1  On  the  part  of  God  it 
is  insured,  for  he  is  faithful  and  will  perfect  the  good  work 
which  he  began ; on  the  part  of  man  it  involves  constant  watch- 
fulness, lest  he  stumble  and  fall.  In  one  view  it  depends  all  on 
the  grace  of  God,  in  another  view  it  depends  all  on  the  exertion 
of  man.  There  is  a mysterious  co-operation  between  the  two 
agencies,  which  is  expressed  in  the  profound  paradox  : “ Work 
out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling ; for  it  is  God 
who  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  work,  for  his  good 
pleasure.”2  The  believer  is  mystically  identified  with  Christ 
from  the  moment  of  his  conversion  (sealed  by  baptism).  He 
died  with  Christ  unto  sin  so  as  to  sin  no  more  ; and  he  rose  with 
him  to  a new  life  unto  God  so  as  to  live  for  God ; he  is  cruci- 
fied to  the  world  and  the  world  to  him ; he  is  a new  creature  in 
Christ ; the  old  man  of  sin  is  dead  and  buried,  the  new  man 
lives  in  holiness  and  righteousness.  “ It  is  no  longer  I (my  own 
sinful  self)  that  lives,  but  it  is  Christ  that  lives  in  me : and  that 
life  which  I now  live  in  the  flesh,  I live  in  faith  in  the  Son  of 
God,  who  loved  me  and  gave  himself  up  for  me.”  3 Here  is  the 
whole  doctrine  of  Christian  life : it  is  Christ  in  us , and  we  in 

1 1 Thess.  5 : 23 : “ The  God  of  peace  sanctify  you  wholly  ; and  may  your 
spirit  and  soul  and  body  be  preserved  entire,  without  blame  at  the  coming 
(irapouaia)  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Faithful  is  he  that  calleth  you,  who  will 
also  do  it.”  Comp,  the  6th,  7th,  and  8th  chs.  of  Romans,  which  treat  most 
fully  of  sanctification,  also  chs.  12-15,  and  all  the  ethical  or  hortatory  portions 
of  his  other  epistles. 

2 Phil.  2 : 12,  13.  The  apostle  emphatically  uses  the  same  verb,  ivepywu  and 
4vepye?v,  while  the  E.  V.,  with  its  usual  love  for  variation,  renders  “ worketh  ” 
and  “to  do.”  Augustin  (De  dono  persev.  33)  : u Nos  ergo  volumvs,  sed  Dens 
in  nobis  operatur  et  velle ; nos  ergo  operamur,  sed  Deus  in  nobis  operatur  et 
operariy  Ver.  13  “ supplies  at  once  the  stimulus  to,  and  the  corrective  of  the 
precept  in  the  preceding  verse  : ‘ Work,  for  God  works  with  you  ; * and  ‘ The 
good  is  not  yours  but  God’s.’  ” Lightfoot,  in  loc.  Comp,  also  Calvin,  Alford, 
and  Braune,  in  loc. 

3 Gal.  2 : 20.  This  passage  is  obscured  in  the  E V.  by  the  omission  of 
ovKiriy  “ no  longer,”  and  the  insertion  of  “nevertheless.” 


§ 71.  TIIE  GENTILE  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY.  539 


Christ.  It  consists  in  a vital  union  with  Christ,  the  crucified 
and  risen  Redeemer,  who  is  the  indwelling,  all-pervading,  and 
controlling  life  of  the  believer ; but  the  union  is  no  pantheistic 
confusion  or  absorption  ; the  believer  continues  to  live  as  a self- 
conscious  and  distinct  personality.  For  the  believer  “ to  live  is 
Christ,  and  to  die  is  gain.”  u Whether  we  live,  we  live  unto 
the  Lord ; whether  we  die,  we  die  unto  the  Lord : whether  we 
live  therefore,  or  die,  we  are  the  Lord’s.”  1 2 

In  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Romans,  Paul  sums  up  his  ethics 
in  the  idea  of  gratitude  which  manifests  itself  in  a cheerful 
sacrifice  of  our  persons  and  services  to  the  God  of  our  salva- 
tion.3 

(5.)  Glorification  (Sofafeti/).  This  is  the  final  completion  of 
the  work  of  grace  in  the  believer  and  will  appear  at  the  parou- 
sia  of  our  Lord.  It  cannot  be  hindered  by  any  power  present 
or  future,  visible  or  invisible,  for  God  and  Christ  are  stronger 
than  all  our  enemies  and  will  enable  us  to  come  out  more  than 
conquerors  from  the  conflict  of  faith. 

This  lofty  conviction  of  final  victory  finds  most  eloquent  ex- 
pression in  the  triumphal  ode  which  closes  the  eighth  chapter 
of  Romans.3 

IY.  The  Historical  Progress  of  the  gospel  of  salvation 
from  Jews  to  Gentiles  and  back  again  to  the  Jews.4  Salvation 

1 Gal.  3 : 27 ; Eph.  5 : 30 ; 1 Cor.  1 : 9 ; 2 Cor.  1 : 3,  5 ; 5:17;  13  : 4 ; Col. 
3:4;  Phil.  1 : 21  ; Rom.  6 : 4-8  ; 14  : 8 ; 1 Thess.  5 : 10.  Comp,  those  numer- 
ous passages  where  Paul  uses  the  significant  phrase  iv  Xpiarw,  living  and  mov- 
ing and  acting  in  Him,  as  the  element  of  our  spiritual  existence. 

2 Hence  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  following  the  order  of  the  Ep.  to  the 
Romans,  represents  Christian  life,  in  the  third  and  last  part,  under  the  head  : 
“ Thankfulness.” 

3 Erasmus  justly  regarded  the  conclusion  of  Rom.  8 : 31-39  as  unsurpassed 
for  genuine  eloquence  : “ Quid  unquam  Cicero  dixit  grandUoquentius  ? ” It  is 
only  equalled  by  the  ode  on  love  in  1 Cor.  13. 

4 This  is  the  subject  of  Rom.  9-11.  These  three  chapters  contain  a theo- 
dicy and  an  outline  of  the  philosophy  of  church  history.  They  are  neither 
the  chief  part  of  Romans  (Baur),  nor  a mere  episode  or  appendix  (De  Wette), 
but  an  essential  part  of  the  Epistle  in  exposition  of  the  concluding  clause 
of  the  theme,  ch.  1 : 17  . . . ‘‘to  the  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the  Greek”  (or 
Gentile).  Ch.  9 treats  of  divine  sovereignty  ; ch.  10  (which  should  begin 


540 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


was  first  intended  for  and  offered  to  the  Jews,  who  were  foi 
centuries  prepared  for  it  by  the  law  and  the  promise,  and  among 
whom  the  Saviour  was  born,  lived,  died,  and  rose  again.  But 
the  Jews  as  a nation  rejected  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and 
hardened  their  hearts  in  unbelief.  This  fact  filled  the  apostle 
with  unutterable  sadness,  and  made  him  willing  to  sacrifice  even 
his  own  salvation  (if  it  were  possible)  for  the  salvation  of  his 
kinsmen. 

But  he  sees  light  in  this  dark  mystery.  First  of  all,  God  has 
a sovereign  right  over  all  his  creatures  and  manifests  both  his 
mercy  and  his  righteousness  in  the  successive  stages  of  the  his- 
torical execution  of  his  wise  designs.  His  promise  has  not  failed, 
for  it  was  not  given  to  all  the  carnal  descendants  of  Abraham 
and  Isaac,  but  only  to  the  spiritual  descendants,  the  true  Israel- 
ites who  have  the  faith  of  Abraham,  and  they  have  been  saved, 
as  individual  Jews  are  saved  to  this  day.  And  even  in  his  rela- 
tion to  the  vessels  of  wrath  who  by  unbelief  and  ingratitude  have 
fitted  themselves  for  destruction,  he  shows  his  longsuffering. 

In  the  next  place,  the  real  cause  of  the  rejection  of  the  body 
of  the  Jews  is  their  own  rejection  of  Christ.  They  sought  their 
own  righteousness  by  works  of  the  law  instead  of  accepting  the 
righteousness  of  God  by  faith. 

Finally,  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  is  only  temporary  and  inci- 
dental in  the  great  drama  of  history.  It  is  overruled  for  the 
speedier  conversion  of  the  Gentiles,  and  the  conversion  of  the 
full  number  or  the  organic  totality  of  the  Gentiles  (not  all  indi- 
vidual Gentiles)  will  lead  ultimately  to  the  conversion  of  Israel. 
“ A hardening  in  part  has  befallen  Israel,  until  the  fulness  of 
the  Gentiles  be  come  in ; and  so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved.” 

With  this  hopeful  prophecy,  which  seems  yet  far  off,  but 

at  ch.  9 : 30)  treats  of  human  responsibility;  ch.  11  of  the  future  solution  of 
this  great  problem.  They  must  be  taken  together  as  a unit.  Ch.  9 alone  may 
be  and  has  been  made  to  prove  Calvinism  and  even  extreme  supralapsarianism ; 
ch.  10  Arminianism  ; and  ch.  11  Universalism.  But  Paul  is  neither  a ( ’alvinist 
nor  an  Arminian  nor  a Universalist  in  the  dogmatic  sense.  See  the  doctrinal 
expositions  in  Lange  on  Bermans,  much  enlarged  in  the  translation,  pp. 
327-334. 


§ 71.  THE  GENTILE  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY.  541 


which  is  steadily  approaching  fulfilment,  and  will  be  realized  in 
God’s  own  time  and  way,  the  apostle  closes  the  doctrinal  part  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  “ God  has  shut  up  all  men  (roi>? 
rravrasi)  unto  disobedience  that  he  might  have  mercy  upon  all 
men.  O the  depth  of  the  riches  both  of  the  wisdom  and  the 
knowledge  of  God!  how  unsearchable  are  his  judgments,  and 
his  ways  past  tracing  out ! . . . For  of  Him  (ef  avrov)  and 
through  Him  (St  ’avrov),  and  unto  Him  (ek  avrov)  are  all 
things.  To  Him  be  the  glory  forever.  Amen.”  1 

Before  this  glorious  consummation,  however,  there  will  be  a 
terrible  conflict  with  Antichrist  or  “ the  man  of  sin,”  and  the 
full  revelation  of  the  mystery  of  lawlessness  now  held  in  check. 
Then  the  Lord  will  appear  as  the  conqueror  in  the  field,  raise 
the  dead,  judge  the  world,  destroy  the  last  enemy,  and  restore 
the  kingdom  to  the  Father  that  God  may  be  all  in  all  ( ra  rrdvra 
iv  rracriv ).2 


Notes. 

I.  The  Pauline  System  of  Doctrine  has  been  more  frequently  ex- 
plained than  any  other. 

Among  the  earlier  writers  Neander,  Usteri,  and  Schmid  take  the  lead, 
and  are  still  valuable.  Neander  and  Schmid  are  in  full  sympathy  with 
the  spirit  and  views  of  Paul.  Usteri  adapted  them  somewhat  to  Schleier- 
macher’s  system,  to  which  he  adhered. 

Next  to  them  the  Tubingen  school,  first  the  master,  Baur  (twice,  in  his 
Paul , and  in  his  New  Test.  Theology ),  and  then  his  pupils,  Pfleiderer  and 
Holsten,  have  done  most  for  a critical  reproduction.  They  rise  far 
above  the  older  rationalism  in  an  earnest  and  intelligent  appreciation  of 
the  sublime  theology  of  Paul,  and  leave  the  impression  that  he  was  a 
most  profound,  bold,  acute,  and  consistent  thinker  on  the  highest 
themes.  But  they  ignore  the  supernatural  element  of  inspiration,  they 
lack  spiritual  sympathy  with  the  faith  of  the  apostle,  overstrain  his  an- 
tagonism to  Judaism  (as  did  Marcion  of  old),  and  confine  the  authentic 
sources  to  the  four  anti-Judaic  Epistles  to  the  Galatians,  Romans,  and 
Corinthians,  although  recognizing  in  the  minor  Epistles  the  “ paulin- 
ische  Grundlage .”  The  more  moderate  followers  of  Baur,  however,  now 
admit  the  genuineness  of  from  seven  to  ten  Pauline  Epistles,  leaving 
only  the  three  Pastoral  Epistles  and  Ephesians  in  serious  doubt. 

The  Paulinismus  of  Weiss  (in  the  third  ed.  of  his  Bibl.  Theol.,  1881, 


1 Rom.  11 : 82,  33,  36. 


5 2 Thess.  2 : 3-12 ; 1 Cor.  15  : 28. 


542 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


pp.  194-472)  is  based  upon  a very  careful  philological  exegesis  in 
detail,  and  is  in  this  respect  the  most  valuable  of  all  attempts  to  repro- 
duce Paul’s  theology.  He  divides  it  into  three  sections : 1st,  the  sys- 
tem of  the  four  great  doctrinal  and  polemical  Epistles ; 2d,  the  further 
development  of  Paulinism  in  the  Epistles  of  the  captivity ; 3d,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Pastoral  Epistles.  He  doubts  only  the  genuineness  of  the 
last  group,  but  admits  a progress  from  the  first  to  the  second. 

Of  French  writers,  Reuss,  Pressense,  and  Sabatier  give  the  best  expo- 
sitions of  the  Pauline  system,  more  or  less  in  imitation  of  German 
labors.  Reuss,  of  Strasburg,  who  writes  in  German  as  well,  is  the  most 
independent  and  learned ; Pressens6  is  more  in  sympathy  with  Paul’s 
belief,  but  gives  only  a meagre  summary ; Sabatier  leans  to  the  Tubin- 
gen school.  Reuss  discusses  Paul’s  system  (in  vol.  H.,  17-220)  very 
fully  under  these  heads : righteousness ; sin  ; the  law ; the  gospel ; God ; 
the  person  of  Christ ; the  work  of  Christ ; typical  relation  of  the  old  and 
new  covenant ; faith  ; election ; calling  and  the  Holy  Spirit ; regenera- 
tion ; redemption ; justification  and  reconciliation ; church ; hope  and 
trial ; last  times  ; kingdom  of  God.  Sabatier  (L’apotre  Paul , pp.  249-318, 
second  ed.,  1881)  more  briefly  but  clearly  develops  the  Pauline  the- 
ology from  the  Christological  point  of  view  (la  personne  de  Christ  prin - 
tipe  generateur  de  la  conscience  chretienne)  under  three  heads : 1st,  the 
Christian  principle  in  the  psychological  sphere  (anthropology)  ; 2d,  in 
the  social  and  historical  sphere  (religious  philosophy  of  history)  ; 3d,  in 
the  metaphysical  sphere  (theology),  which  culminates  in  the  3*or  r« 
nairra  cv  ttcktlv  “ Ainsi  nait  et  gr audit  cet  arhre  magnifique  de  la  pensee  de 
Pauly  dont  les  racines  plongent  dans  le  sol  de  la  conscience  chretienne  et  dont 
la  time  est  dans  les  cieux.” 

Renan,  who  professes  so  much  sentimental  admiration  for  the  poetry 
and  wisdom  of  Jesus,  “ the  charming  Galilaean  peasant,”  has  no  organ 
for  the  theology  of  Paul  any  more  than  Voltaire  had  for  the  poetry  of 
Shakespeare.  He  regards  him  as  a bold  and  vigorous,  but  uncouth 
and  semi-barbarous  genius,  full  of  rabbinical  subtleties,  useless  specula- 
tions, and  polemical  intolerance  even  against  good  old  Peter  at  Antioch. 

Several  doctrines  of  Paul  have  been  specially  discussed  by  German 
scholars,  as  Tischendorf  : Boctrina  Pauli  apostoli  de  Vi  Mortis  Christi 
Satisfactoria  (Leipz.,  1837)  ; Rabiger  : Be  Christologia  Paulina  (Breslau, 
1852);  Lipsius:  Bie  paulinische  Rechtfertiguugslehre  (Leipz.,  1853); 
Ernesti  : Vom  Ursprung  der  Sunde  nach  paulinischem  Lehrgehalt  (WolfeD- 
biittel,  1855) ; Bie  Ethik  des  Paulus  (Braunschweig,  1868  ; 3d  ed.,  1881) ; 
W.  Beyscklag  : Bie  paulinische  Theodicee  (Berlin,  1868) ; R.  Schmidt  : 
Bie  Christologie  des  Ap.  Paulus  (Gott.,  1870)  ; A.  Dietzsch  : Adam  und 
Christus  (Bonn,  1871) ; H.  Ludemann  : Bie  Anthropologie  des  Ap.  Paulus 
(Kiel,  1872)  ; R.  Stahelin  : Zur  paulinischen  Eschatologie  (1874) ; A. 
Schumann  : Ber  weltgeschichtl.  Entvoickelungsprocess  nach  dem  Lehr  system 
des  Ap.  Paulus  (Crefeld,  1876)  ; Fr.  Kostlin  : Bie  Lehre  des  Paulus  von 


§ 71.  TIIE  GENTILE  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY.  543 


der  Avfersteliung  (1877);  H.  H.  Wendt:  Die  Begrijfe  Fleisch  und  Geist 
im  biblischen  Sprachgebrauch  (Gotha,  1878). 

II.  The  Chkistology  of  Paul  is  closely  interwoven  with  his  soteri- 
ology.  In  Homans  and  Galatians  the  soteriological  aspect  prevails,  in 
Philippians  and  Colossians  the  christological.  His  christology  is  very 
rich,  and  with  that  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  prepares  the  way  for 
the  christology  of  John.  It  is  even  more  fully  developed  than  John’s, 
only  less  prominent  in  the  system. 

The  chief  passages  on  the  person  of  Christ  are : Horn.  1 : 3,  4 (*k 
CTTtppaTos  Aavdd  Kara  cdpKa  . . vios  3eo»)  Kara,  n vevpa  dyioiavvijs)  ; 8:3 
(6  3eor  rov  eavrov  vldv  irepyjras  tv  opoicapan  capKos  dpapruis),  ver.  32  (os  too 
idlov  viov  ovk  (faiaaro)  ; 9 : 5 (c£  S)v  6 Xpicros  to  Kara  copied,  6 &v  en\  ndivroov, 
3eos  eiXoyrjros  (Is  tovs  altovas — but  the  punctuation  and  consequently  the 
application  of  the  doxology — whether  to  God  or  to  Christ — are  dis- 
puted) ; 1 Cor.  1 : 19  (6  Kupios  rj/iuv,  a very  frequent  designation) ; 2 Cor. 
5 : 21  ( tov  prj  yvdvra  apaprlav ) ; 8:9  (tirToi^evcev  nXovaios  tov,  tva  vpd s 
tt}  (K(ivov  TTToaxda  n\ovTrj(Tr)T() ; Phil.  2 : 5—11  (the  famous  passage  about 
the  k(vuxtis)  ; Col.  1 : 15—18  (os  eanv  tiKtov  tov  3eoC  tov  aopdrov  npooToroKos 
rrdarjs  KTiVewr,  on  tv  avreo  (Kt'kt'St)  to.  ndvra  . . . rd  ndvra  8t  avrov  Kat  ds 
avTov  (KTicTai  . . . ) ; 2 : 9 (tv  avra  KdToiKei  nav  to  nXrjpcopa  rrjs  %(6tt)tos 
aaipariKoos)  ; 1 Tim.  3 : 16  (os  ft fiav(pd>%T]  tv  aapd  . . . ) ; Tit.  2 : 13  ( tov 
fitydXov  3eo0  Kai  caiTrjpos  rjpwv  XpicTov  ’I rjcov,  where,  however,  commen- 
tators differ  in  the  construction,  as  in  Rom.  9:5). 

From  these  and  other  passages  the  following  doctrinal  points  may  be 
inferred : 

1.  The  eternal  pre-existence  of  Christ  as  to  his  divine  nature.  The  pre- 
existence generally  is  implied  in  Rom.  8 : 3,  32 ; 2 Cor.  5 : 21 ; Phil.  2:5; 
the  pre-existence  before  the  creation  is  expressly  asserted,  Col.  1 : 15 ; the 
eternity  of  this  pre-existence  is  a metaphysical  inference  from  the  nature 
of  the  case,  since  an  existence  before  all  creation  must  be  an  uncreated, 
therefore  a divine  or  eternal  existence  which  has  no  beginning  as  well  as 
no  end.  (John  carefully  distinguishes  between  the  eternal  rjv  of  the  pre- 
existent Logos,  and  the  temporal  eyeWo  of  the  incarnate  Logos,  John 
1 : 1, 14 ; comp.  8 : 58.)  This  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  designation  of 
Christ  as  “ the  first-born  of  all  creation,”  Col.  1 : 15 ; for  npterd  tokos  is 
different  from  npvTOKT  icros  (first-created),  as  the  Nicene  fathers 
already  remarked,  in  opposition  to  Arius,  who  inferred  from  the  passage 
that  Christ  was  the  first  creature  of  God  and  the  creator  of  all  other 
creatures.  The  word  first  born  corresponds  to  the  Johannean  povoytv^, 
only-begotten.  “Both  express,”  as  Lightfoot  says  (Com.  on  Col.)  “the 
same  eternal  fact ; but  while  povoytvr^s  states  it  in  itself,  npoToroKos  places 
it  in  relation  to  the  universe.”  We  may  also  compare  the  npurdyovos , 
first -begotten,  which  Philo  applies  to  the  Logos,  as  including  the  original 
archetypal  idea  of  the  created  world.  “ The  first-born,”  used  absolutely 
(it poT&roKos,  Tba»  Pa.  89 : 28),  became  a recognized  title  of  the  Mes- 


544 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


siah.  Moreover,  the  genitive  ndarjs  icrireas  is  not  the  partitive,  but  the 
comparative  genitive : the  first-born  as  compared  with,  that  is,  befoi'e, 
every  creature.  So  Justin  Martyr  ( npo  ndvrwv  row  KTur/idrav),  Meyer, 
and  Bp.  Lightfoot,  in  loc. ; also  Weiss,  Bibl.  Theol.  d.  N.  T.,  p.  431  (who 
refutes  the  opposite  view  of  Usteri,  Reuss,  and  Baur,  and  says  : “ Da 
Trdarjs  ktu tccos  jede  einzelne  Creatur  bezeichnet , so  kann  der  Genit.  nur  com- 
parativ  genommen  werden,  und  nur  besagen,  dass  er  im  Vergleich  mit  jedei 
Creatur  der  Erstgeborne  war”).  The  words  immediately  following,  ver. 
16,  17,  exclude  the  possibility  of  regarding  Christ  himself  as  a creature. 
Lightfoot,  in  his  masterly  Comm.  (p.  212  sq.),  very  fully  explains  the 
term  as  teaching  the  absolute  pre-existence  of  the  Son,  his  priority  to 
and  sovereignty  over  all  creation. 

The  recent  attempt  of  Dr.  Beyschlag  (Cliristologie  des  N.  T.,  pp.  149 
sqq.,  242  sqq.)  to  resolve  the  pre-existent  Christ  of  Paul  and  John  into 
an  ideal  principle,  instead  of  a real  personality,  is  an  exegetical  failure, 
like  the  similar  attempts  of  the  Socinians,  and  is  as  far  from  the  mark  as 
the  interpretation  of  some  of  the  Nicene  fathers  (e.  g.,  Marcellus)  who, 
in  order  to  escape  the  Arian  argument,  understood  prototokos  of  the 
incarnate  Logos  as  the  head  of  the  new  spiritual  creation. 

2.  Christ  is  the  mediator  and  the  end  of  creation.  “ All  things  were 
created  in  him,  in  the  heavens  and  upon  the  earth,  things  visible  and 
things  invisible  . . . ; all  things  have  been  created  through  him  (Si*  avrov) 
and  unto  him  (els  avrov) ; and  he  is  before  all  things,  and  in  him  all  things 
consist,”  Col.  1 : 15-18.  The  same  doctrine  is  taught  in  1 Cor.  8 : 6 
(“Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  are  all  things”) ; 10  ; 9 ; 15  : 47 ; as  well 
as  in  the  Ep.  to  the  Hebrews  (1:2:  “ through  whom  he  also  made  the 
worlds  ” or  “ ages  ”),  and  in  John  1 : 3. 

3.  The  divinity  of  Christ  is  clearly  implied  in  the  constant  co-ordina- 
tion of  Christ  with  the  Father  as  the  author  of  “ grace  and  peace,”  in 
the  salutations  of  the  Epistles,  and  in  such  expressions  as  “the  image 
of  the  invisible  God”  (Col.  1 : 15) ; “in  him  dwells  the  fulness  of  the  God- 
head bodily”  (2:9):  “existing  in  the  form  of  God,”  and  “ being  on  an 
equality  with  God  ” (Phil.  2:6).  In  two  passages  he  is,  according  to  the 
usual  interpretation,  even  called  “God  ” (3e<h),  but,  as  already  remarked, 
the  exegetes  are  still  divided  on  the  reference  of  Sfo?  in  Rom.  P : 5 and 
Tit.  2 : 13.  Meyer  admits  that  Paul,  according  to  his  christolcgy,  could 
call  Christ  “ God”  (as  predicate,  without  the  article,  Se 6s,  not  6 %eos) ; 
and  Weiss,  in  the  6th  edition  of  Meyer  on  Romans  (1881),  adopts  the 
prevailing  orthodox  punctuation  and  interpretation  in  ch.  9 : 5 as  the 
most  natural,  on  purely  exegetical  grounds  (the  necessity  of  a supple- 
ment to  Kara  adpKa,  and  the  position  of  evXoyrjros  after  Stof) : “ Christ  as 
concerning  the  flesh,  who  [at  the  same  time  according  to  his  higher 
nature]  is  over  all,  even  God  blessed  for  ever.”  Westcott  and  Hort  are 
not  quite  agreed  on  the  punctuation.  See  their  note  in  Greek  Test., 
Introd.  and  Appendix , p.  109. 


§71.  THE  GENTILE  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY.  545 


4.  The  incarnation.  This  is  designated  by  the  terms  “ God  sent  his 
own  Son  (Rom.  8 : 3,  comp.  32)  ; Christ  “ emptied  himself,  taking  the 
form  of  a servant,  being  made  in  the  likeness  of  men  (Phil.  2 : 7). 
Without  entering  here  into  the  Kenosis  controversy  (the  older  one 
between  Giessen  and  Tubingen,  1620-1630,  and  the  recent  one  which 
began  with  Thomasius,  1845),  it  is  enough  to  say  that  the  Kenosis,  or 
self-exinanition,  refers  not  to  the  incarnate,  but  to  the  pre-existent  Son 
of  God,  and  implies  a certain  kind  of  self-limitation  or  temporary  sur- 
render of  the  divine  mode  of  existence  during  the  state  of  humiliation. 
This  humiliation  was  followed  by  exaltation  as  a reward  for  his  obe- 
dience unto  death  (ver.  9-11)  ; hence  he  is  now  “ the  Lord  of  glory  ” 
(1  Cor.  2 : 8).  To  define  the  limits  of  the  Kenosis,  and  to  adjust  it  to 
the  immutability  of  the  Godhead  and  the  intertrinitarian  process,  lies 
beyond  the  sphere  of  exegesis  and  belongs  to  speculative  dogmatics. 

5.  The  true,  but  sinless  humanity  of  Christ.  He  appeared  “in  the 
likeness  of  the  flesh  of  sin  ” (Rom.  8:3);  he  is  a son  of  David  “ accord- 
ing to  the  flesh”  (1:3),  which  includes  the  whole  human  nature,  body, 
soul,  and  spirit  (as  in  John  1 : 14)  ; he  is  called  a man  (au^pconos)  in  the 
full  sense  of  the  term  (1  Cor.  15  : 21 ; Rom.  5 : 15 ; Acts  17  :31).  He 
was  “ bom  of  a woman,  born  under  the  law  ” (Gal.  4:4);  he  was 
“ found  in  fashion  as  a man  ” and  became  “ obedient  even  unto  death  ” 
(Phil.  2:8),  and  he  truly  suffered  and  died,  like  other  men.  But  he 
“ knew  no  sin”  (2  Cor.  5 : 21).  He  could,  of  course,  not  be  the  Saviour 
of  sinners  if  he  himself  were  a sinner  and  in  need  of  salvation. 

Of  the  events  of  Christ’s  life,  Paul  mentions  especially  and  frequently 
his  death  and  resurrection,  on  which  our  salvation  depends.  He  also 
reports  the  institution  of  the  Lord’s  Supper,  which  perpetuates  the 
memory  and  the  blessing  of  the  atoning  sacrifice  on  the  cross  (1  Cor. 
11 : 23-30).  He  presupposes,  of  course,  a general  knowledge  of  the 
historical  Christ,  as  his  Epistles  are  all  addressed  to  believing  converts ; 
but  he  incidentally  preserves  a gem  of  Christ’s  sayings  not  reported  by 
the  Evangelists,  which  shines  like  a lone  star  on  the  firmament  of  un- 
certain traditions  : “ It  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive  ” (Acts 
20  : 35). 

HI.  Paul’s  Doctrine  of  Predestination. — Eternal  foreknowledge  of 
all  persons  and  things  is  necessarily  included  in  God’s  omniscience,  and 
is  uniformly  taught  in  the  Bible ; eternal  foreordination  or  predestina- 
tion is  included  in  his  almighty  power  and  sovereignty,  but  must  be  so 
conceived  as  to  leave  room  for  free  agency  and  responsibility,  and  to 
exclude  God  from  the  authorship  of  sin.  Self-limitation  is  a part  of 
freedom  even  in  man,  and  may  be  exercised  by  the  sovereign  God  for 
holy  purposes  and  from  love  to  his  creatures ; in  fact  it  is  necessary,  if 
salvation  is  to  be  a moral  process,  and  not  a physical  or  mechanical  ne- 
cessity. Religion  is  worth  nothing  except  as  the  expression  of  free 
conviction  and  voluntary  devotion.  Paul  represents  sometimes  the 


m 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


divine  sovereignty,  sometimes  the  human  responsibility,  sometimes,  as 
in  Phil.  2 : 12,  13,  he  combines  both  sides,  without  an  attempt  to  solve 
the  insolvable  problem  which  really  lies  beyond  the  present  capacity  of 
the  human  mind.  “ He  does  not  deal  with  speculative  extremes  ; and 
in  whatever  way  the  question  be  speculatively  adjusted,  absolute  de- 
pendence and  moral  self-determination  are  both  involved  in  the  imme- 
diate Christian  self-consciousness,”  Baur,  Paul , II.  249.  “Practical 
teaching,”  says  Reuss  (II.  532)  to  the  same  effect,  “ will  always  be  con- 
strained to  insist  upon  the  fact  that  man’s  salvation  is  a free  gift  of 
God,  and  that  his  condemnation  is  only  the  just  punishment  of  sin.” 
Comp,  also  Farrar,  St.  Paul,  II.  243,  590 ; Weiss,  p.  356  sqq. ; Bey- 
schlag,  Die  paulinische  Theodicee  (Berlin,  1868).  Weiss  thus  sums  up 
Paul’s  doctrine  of  predestination  : “ An  sick  hat  Gott  das  absolute  Recht , 
die  Menschen  von  vornherein  zum  Heil  oder  zum  Verderben  zu  erschaffen 
und  durch  freie  MachtwirJcung  diesein  Ziele  zuzufuhren  ; aber  er  hat  sich  in 
Betreff  des  christlichen  Heils  dieses  Rechtes  nur  insofern  bedient,  als  er  un- 
ablidngig  von  allem  menschlichen  Thun  und  Verdienen  nach  seinem  unbe - 
schrdnkten  Willen  bestimmt , an  welche  Bedingung  er  seine  Gnade  knupfen 
will.  Die  Bedingung , an  welche  er  seine  Erwahlung  gebunden  hat , ist  nun 
nichts  anders  als  die  Liebe  zu  ihm , welche  er  an  den  empfdnglichen  Seelen 
vorhererkennt.  Die  Erwdhlten  aber  werden  berufen , indem  Gott  durch  das 
Evangelium  in  ihnen  den  Glauben  wirkt .” 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Paul  teaches  an  eternal  election  to  eter- 
nal salvation  by  free  grace,  an  election  which  is  to  be  actualized  by  faith 
in  Christ  and  a holy  life  of  obedience.  But  he  does  not  teach  a decree 
of  reprobation  or  a predestination  to  sin  and  perdition  (which  would 
indeed  be  a “ decretum  horribile ,”  if  verum ).  This  is  a logical  invention 
of  supralapsarian  theologians  who  deem  it  to  be  the  necessary  counter- 
part of  the  decree  of  election.  But  man’s  logic  is  not  God’s  logic.  A 
decree  of  reprobation  is  nowhere  mentioned.  The  term  dSo*qior,  disap- 
proved, worthless , reprobate,  is  used  five  times  only  as  a description  of 
character  (twice  of  things).  The  ninth  chapter  of  Romans  is  the  Gib- 
raltar of  supralapsarianism,  but  it  must  be  explained  in  connection  with 
chapters  10  and  11,  which  present  the  other  aspects.  The  strongest 
passage  is  Rom.  9 : 22,  where  Paul  speaks  of  aKcvrj  opyrjs  Kart) pr  i a pe  va 
els  an a>  \ e ia  u.  But  he  significantly  uses  here  the  passive  : “fitted 
unto  destruction,”  or  rather  (as  many  of  the  best  commentators  from 
Chrysostom  to  Weiss  take  it)  the  middle  : “ who  fitted  themselves  for 
destruction,”  and  so  deserved  it ; while  of  the  vessels  of  mercy  he  says 
that  God  “ before  prepared  ” them  unto  glory  (o-kcvt)  (\iovs  a nporjTolpaafv , 
ver.  23).  He  studiously  avoids  to  say  of  the  vessels  of  wrath  : a Karrjp . 
Tt (rev,  which  would  have  corresponded  to  a nporjTolpaafv , and  thus  he 
exempts  God  from  a direct  and  efficient  agency  in  sin  and  destruction. 
When  in  the  same  chapter,  ver.  17,  he  says  of  Pharaoh,  that  God  raised 
him  up  for  the  very  purpose  (cts  avro  tovto  ffryu pd  ae)  that  he  might 


§ 71.  THE  GENTILE  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY.  547 


show  in  him  His  power,  he  does  not  mean  that  God  created  him  or 
called  him  into  existence  (which  would  require  a different  verb),  but, 
according  to  the  Hebrew  (Ex.  9 : 16,  the  hipliil  of  "lE^),  that  “he caused 
him  to  stand  forth  ” as  actor  in  the  scene ; and  when  he  says  with  refer- 
ence to  the  same  history  that  God  “ hardens  whom  he  will”  (ver.  18. 
hv  8e  3f'Aei  aKXrjpvve t),  it  must  be  remembered  that  Pharaoh  had  already 
repeatedly  hardened  his  own  heart  (Ex.  8 : 15,  32  ; 9 : 34,  35),  so  that 
God  punished  him  for  his  sin  and  abandoned  him  to  its  consequences. 
God  does  not  cause  evil,  but  he  bends,  guides,  and  overrules  it  and 
often  punishes  sin  with  sin.  “ Das  ist  der  Fluch  der  bosen  That , dass  sie , 
fortzeugend,  immer  Boses  muss  gebaren.”  (Schiller.) 

In  this  mysterious  problem  of  predestination  Paul  likewise  faithfully 
carries  out  the  teaching  of  his  Master.  For  in  the  sublime  description 
of  the  final  judgment,  Christ  says  to  the  “ blessed  of  my  Father “ In- 
herit the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  from  the  foundation  of  the  world  ” 
(Matt.  25  : 34),  but  to  those  on  the  left  hand  he  says,  “Depart  from  me, 
ye  cursed,  into  the  eternal  fire  which  is  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his 
angels  ” (ver.  41).  The  omission  of  the  words  “ of  my  Father,”  after  “ ye 
cursed,”  and  of  the  words  “for  you,”  and  “from  the  foundation  of  the 
world,”  is  very  significant,  and  implies  that  while  the  inheritance  of  the 
kingdom  is  traced  to  the  eternal  favor  of  God,  the  damnation  is  due  to 
the  guilt  of  man. 

IV.  The  doctrine  of  justification.  This  occupies  a prominent  space 
in  Paul’s  system,  though  by  no  means  to  the  disparagement  of  his  doc- 
trine of  sanctification,  which  is  treated  with  the  same  fulness  even  in 
Romans  (comp.  chs.  6-8  and  12-15).  Luther,  in  conflict  with  Judaiz- 
ing  Rome,  overstated  the  importance  of  justification  by  faith  when  he 
called  it  the  articulus  stantis  vel  cadentis  ecclesice.  This  can  only  be  said 
of  Christ  (comp.  Matt.  16  : 16 ; 1 Cor.  3 : 11 ; 1 John  4 : 2,  3).  It  is  not 
even  the  theme  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  as  often  stated  ( e.g .,  by 
Farrar,  St.  Paul,  II.  181)  ; for  it  is  there  subordinated  by  yap  to  the 
broader  idea  of  salvation  ( a-orrjpla ),  which  is  the  theme  (1 : 16,  17). 
Justification  by  faith  is  the  way  by  which  salvation  can  be  obtained. 

The  doctrine  of  justification  may  be  thus  illustrated  : 


The  cognate  words  are  8uc alaxris,  SiKalcapa,  ftbcaios,  SiKmoa.  The  Paul- 
ine idea  of  righteousness  is  derived  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  is  in- 


Aucaioavin) 


Aucatoavvr]  tov  popov 


AiKaioavtnj  rot)  SeoO 
(K  3fOU 


epyoiv 
id  la. 


tt]s  mare  (os 

ck  r rjs  7 Tia-reas 

fit a irtaTcas  Xpiarov. 


548 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


separable  from  the  conception  of  the  holy  will  of  God  and  his  revealed 
law.  But  the  classical  usage  is  quite  consistent  with  it,  and  illustrates 
the  biblical  usage  from  a lower  plane.  The  Greek  words  are  derived 
from  diKT],  jus,  right , and  further  back  from  bi^a,  or  bis,  two-fold,  in  tuo 
parts  (according  to  Aristotle,  Eth.  Nic .,  v.  2) ; hence  they  indicate  a 
well-proportioned  relation  between  parts  or  persons  where  each  has 
his  due.  It  may  uhen  apply  to  the  relation  between  God  and  man,  or 
to  the  relation  between  man  and  man,  or  to  both  at  once.  To  the 
Greeks  a righteous  man  was  one  who  fulfils  his  obligations  to  God  and 
man.  It  was  a Greek  proverb  : “ In  righteousness  all  virtue  is  con- 
tained.” 

A LKaLoa-vvrj  is  an  attribute  of  God,  and  a corresponding 

moral  condition  of  man,  i.e.,  man’s  conformity  to  the  will  of  God  as 
expressed  in  his  holy  law.  It  is  therefore  identical  with  true  religion, 
with  piety  and  virtue,  as  required  by  God,  and  insures  his  favor  and 
blessing.  The  word  occurs  (according  to  Bruder’s  Concord.)  sixty  times 
in  all  the  Pauline  Epistles,  namely : thirty-six  times  in  Romans,  four 
times  in  Galatians,  seven  times  in  2 Corinthians,  once  in  1 Corinthians, 
four  times  in  Philippians,  three  times  in  Ephesians,  three  times  in 
2 Timothy,  once  in  1 Timothy,  and  once  in  Titus. 

A licaios  righteous  ( rechtbeschaffen ),  is  one  who  fulfils  his  duties 

to  God  and  men,  and  is  therefore  well  pleasing  to  God.  It  is  used 
seventeen  times  by  Paul  (seven  times  in  Romans),  and  often  elsewhere 
in  the  New  Testament. 

A ucaicocris  occurs  only  twice  in  the  New  Test.  (Rom.  4 : 25;  5 : 18).  It 
signifies  justification,  or  the  act  of  God  by  which  he  puts  the  sinner  into 
the  possession  of  righteousness. 

AiKaioi^a,  which  is  found  Rom.  1 : 32  ; 2 : 26 ; 5 : 16,  18  ; 8:4,  means  a 
righteous  decree,  or  judgment.  Aristotle  {Eth.  Nicom.,  v.  10)  defines  it  as 
to  enavop^iat^ia  to v abaci] paros,  the  amendment  of  an  evil  deed,  or  a legal  ad- 
justment ; and  this  would  suit  the  passage  in  Rom.  5 : 16,  18. 

The  verb  bacaioco  (PT^t  'P"1'?2?'?)  occurs  twenty-seven  times  in  Paul, 
mostly  in  Romans,  several  times  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels,  once  in  Acts, 
and  three  times  in  James  (2  : 21,  24,  25).  It  may  mean,  etymologically, 
to  make  just,  justificare  (for  the  verbs  in  o&>,  derived  from  adjectives  of  the 
second  declension,  indicate  the  making  of  what  the  adjective  denotes,  e.g ., 
brjXoa),  to  make  clear,  (j)avep6a>,  to  reveal,  ru$Xo&>,  to  blind)  ; but  in  the  Septua- 
gint  and  the  Greek  Testament  it  hardly  ever  has  this  meaning  (“  here  sig- 
nification says  Grimm,  “ admodum  rara,  nisi  prorsus  dubia  est,J),  and  is 
used  in  a forensic  or  judicial  sense  : to  declare  one  righteous  [aliquem  jnstum 
declarare , judicare ).  This  justification  of  the  sinner  is,  of  course,  not  a 
legal  fiction,  but  perfectly  true,  for  it  is  based  on  the  real  righteousness 
of  Christ  which  the  sinner  makes  his  own  by  faith,  and  must  prove  his 
own  by  a life  of  holy  obedience,  or  good  works.  For  further  exposi- 
tions, see  my  annotations  to  Lange  on  Romans,  pp.  74,  130,  136,  138 ; 


§ 72.  JOHN  AND  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LOVE, 


549 


and  my  Com.  on  Gal.  2 : 16,  17.  On  the  imputation  controversies  see 
my  essay  in  Lange  on  Romans  5 : 12,  pp.  190-195.  On  the  relation  of 
Paul’s  dootrine  of  justification  to  that  of  James,  see  g 69,  p.  521. 

V.  Paul’s  doctrine  of  the  Church  has  been  stated  in  $ 65,  p.  506.  But 
it  requires  more  than  one  book  to  do  anything  like  justice  to  the  won" 
derful  theology  of  this  wonderful  man. 


§ 72.  John  and  the  Gospel  of  Love. 

(See  the  Lit.  in  § 40,  p.  405. ) 

General  Character. 

The  unity  of  Jewish  Christian  and  Gentile  Christian  theology 
meets  us  in  the  writings  of  John,  who,  in  the  closing  decades  of 
the  first  century,  summed  up  the  final  results  of  the  preceding 
struggles  of  the  apostolic  age  and  transmitted  them  to  posterity. 
Paul  had  fought  out  the  great  conflict  with  Judaism  and  secured 
the  recognition  of  the  freedom  and  universality  of  the  gospel 
for  all  time  to  come.  John  disposes  of  this  question  with  one 
sentence : “ The  law  was  given  through  Moses ; grace  and  truth 
came  through  Jesus  Christ.” 1 His  theology  marks  the  culmi- 
nating height  of  divine  knowledge  in  the  apostolic  age.  It  is  im- 
possible to  soar  higher  than  the  eagle,  which  is  his  proper  symbol.3 

His  views  are  so  much  identified  with  the  words  of  his  Lord, 
to  whom  he  stood  more  closely  related  than  any  other  disciple, 
that  it  is  difficult  to  separate  them ; but  the  prologue  to  his 
Gospel  contains  his  leading  ideas,  and  his  first  Epistle  the  prac- 
tical application.  The  theology  of  the  Apocalypse  is  also  es- 
sentially the  same,  and  this  goes  far  to  confirm  the  identity  of 
authorship.3 

1 John  1 : 17. 

3 Herein  Baur  agrees  with  Neander  and  Schmid.  He  says  of  the  Johannean 
type  (l.  c. , p.  351):  “ In  Him  erreicht  die  neutestamentliche  Theologie  Hire 
hochste  Stufe  und  Hire  vollendetste  Form.”  This  admission  makes  it  all  the 
more  impossible  to  attribute  the  fourth  Gospel  to  a literary  forger  of  the  second 
century.  See  also  some  excellent  remarks  of  Weiss,  pp.  605  sqq. , and  the 
concluding  chapter  of  Reuss  on  Paul  and  John. 

1 For  the  theology  of  the  Apocalypse  as  compared  with  that  of  the  Gospel 
and  Epistles  of  John,  see  especially  Gebhardt,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Apoc., 
transl.  by  Jefferson,  Edinb.,  1878. 


550 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


John  was  not  a logician,  but  a seer ; not  a reasoner,  but  a mys- 
tic ; be  does  not  argue,  but  assert ; he  arrives  at  conclusions  with 
one  bound,  as  by  direct  intuition.  He  speaks  from  personal  ex- 
perience and  testifies  of  that  which  his  eyes  have  seen  and  his 
ears  heard  and  his  hands  have  handled,  of  the  glory  of  the  Only- 
llegotten  of  the  Father  full  of  grace  and  truth.1 

John’s  theology  is  marked  by  artless  simplicity  and  spiritual 
depth.  The  highest  art  conceals  art.  As  in  poetry,  so  in  reli- 
gion, the  most  natural  is  the  most  perfect.  He  moves  in  a 
small  circle  of  ideas  as  compared  with  Paul,  but  these  ideas  are 
fundamental  and  all-comprehensive.  He  goes  back  to  first  prin- 
ciples and  sees  the  strong  point  without  looking  sideways  or 
taking  note  of  exceptions.  Christ  and  Antichrist,  believers  and 
unbelievers,  children  of  God  and  children  of  the  devil,  truth 
and  falsehood,  light  and  darkness,  love  and  hatred,  life  and 
death : these  are  the  great  contrasts  under  which  he  views  the 
religious  world.  These  he  sets  forth  again  and  again  with 
majestic  simplicity. 

John  and  Paul. 

John’s  type  of  doctrine  is  less  developed  and  fortified  than 
Paul’s,  but  more  ideal.  His  mind  was  neither  so  rich  nor  so 
strong,  but  it  soared  higher  and  anticipated  the  beatific  vision. 
Although  Paul  was  far  superior  to  him  as  a scholar  (and  practi- 
cal worker),  yet  the  ancient  Greek  church  saw  in  John  the  ideal 
theologian.3  John’s  spirit  and  style  may  be  compared  to  a calm, 
clear  mountain-lake  which  reflects  the  image  of  the  sun,  moon, 
and  stars,  while  Paul  resembles  the  mountain-torrent  that  rushes 
over  precipices  and  carries  everything ' before  it ; yet  there  are 
trumpets  of  war  in  John,  and  anthems  of  peace  in  Paul.  The 
one  begins  from  the  summit,  with  God  and  the  Logos,  the  other 
from  the  depths  of  man’s  sin  and  misery ; but  both  meet  in  the 
God-man  who  brings  God  down  to  man  and  lifts  man  up  to  God. 

1 John  1 : 14  (t&ea<rdn&a  86£av  airrov)  ; 1 John  1 : 1-3. 

* In  the  strictest  sense  of  &eo\6yos,  as  the  chief  champion  of  the  eternal 
deity  of  the  Logos : John  1:1:  &eos  6 \6yos.  So  in  the  superscription  of 
the  Apocalypse  in  several  cursive  MSS. 


§ 72.  JOHN  AND  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LOVE.  551 

John  is  contemplative  and  serene,  Paul  is  aggressive  and  polemi- 
cal ; but  botli  unite  in  the  victory  of  faith  and  the  never-end- 
ing dominion  of  love.  John’s  theology  is  christological,  Paul’s 
soteriological ; John  starts  from  the  person  of  Christ,  Paul  from 
his  work ; but  their  christology  and  soteriology  are  essentially 
agreed.  John’s  ideal  is  life  eternal,  Paul’s  ideal  is  righteous- 
ness ; but  both  derive  it  from  the  same  source,  the  union  with 
Christ,  and  find  in  this  the  highest  happiness  of  man.  John 
represents  the  church  triumphant,  Paul  the  church  militant  of 
his  day  and  of  our  day,  but  with  the  full  assurance  of  final  vic- 
tory even  over  the  last  enemy. 

The  Central  Idea. 

John’s  Christianity  centres  in  the  idea  of  love  and  life,  which 
in  their  last  root  are  identical.  His  dogmatics  are  summed  up 
in  the  word : God  first  loved  us ; his  ethics  in  the  exhortation : 
Therefore  let  us  love  Him  and  the  brethren.  He  is  justly  called 
the  apostle  of  love.  Only  we  must  not  understand  this  word 
in  a sentimental,  but  in  the  highest  and  purest  moral  sense. 
God’s  love  is  his  self -communication  to  man ; man’s  love  is  a 
holy  self -consecration  to  God.  We  may  recognize — in  rising 
stages  of  transformation — the  same  fiery  spirit  in  the  Son  of 
Thunder  who  called  vengeance  from  heaven ; in  the  Apocalyptic 
seer  who  poured  out  the  vials  of  wrath  against  the  enemies  of 
Christ;  and  in  the  beloved  disciple  who  knew  no  middle  ground, 
but  demanded  undivided  loyalty  and  whole-souled  devotion  to 
his  Master.  In  him  the  highest  knowledge  and  the  highest  love 
coincide : knowledge  is  the  eye  of  love,  love  the  heart  of  knowl- 
edge ; both  constitute  eternal  life,  and  eternal  life  is  the  fulness 
of  happiness.1 

The  central  truth  of  John  and  the  central  fact  in  Christianity 
itself  is  the  incarnation  of  the  eternal  Logos  as  the  highest  mani- 
festation of  God’s  love  to  the  world.  The  denial  of  this  truth 
is  the  criterion  of  Antichrist.3 

1 John  17  : 3;  15  : 11  ; 16  : 24  ; 1 John  1 : 4. 

8 Comp.  John  1 : 14;  3 : 16;  1 John  4 : 1-3. 


552 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


The  Principal  Doctrines. 

I.  The  doctrine  of  God.  He  is  spirit  (7 rvevfia),  he  is  light 
(<£«?),  he  is  love  (d’yairr)).1  These  are  the  briefest  and  yet  the 
profoundest  definitions  which  can  be  given  of  the  infinite  Being 
of  all  beings.  The  first  is  put  into  the  mouth  of  Christ,  the 
second  and  third  are  from  the  pen  of  John.  The  first  sets  forth 
God’s  metaphysical,  the  second  his  intellectual,  the  third  his 
moral  perfection ; but  they  are  blended  in  one. 

God  is  spirit,  all  spirit,  absolute  spirit  (in  opposition  to  every 
materialistic  conception  and  limitation) ; hence  omnipresent,  all- 
pervading,  and  should  be  worshipped,  whether  in  Jerusalem  or 
Gerizim  or  anywhere  else,  in  spirit  and  in  truth. 

God  is  light,  all  light  without  a spot  of  darkness,  and  the 
fountain  of  all  light,  that  is  of  truth,  purity,  and  holiness. 

God  is  love ; this  John  repeats  twice,  looking  upon  love  as 
the  inmost  moral  essence  of  God,  which  animates,  directs,  and 
holds  together  all  other  attributes ; it  is  the  motive  power  of  his 
revelations  or  self-communications,  the  beginning  and  the  end 
of  his  ways  and  works,  the  core  of  his  manifestation  in  Christ. 

II.  The  doctrine  of  Christ’s  Person.  He  is  the  eternal  and 
the  incarnate  Logos  or  Bevealer  of  God.  Ho  man  has  ever  yet 
seen  God  (Seov,  without  the  article,  God’s  nature,  or  God  as 
God)  ; the  only-begotten  Son  (or  God  only-begotten),2  who  is  in 

1 John  4 : 24  ; 1 John  1:5;  4 : 8,  16.  The  first  definition  or  oracle  is  from 
Christ’s  dialogue  with  the  woman  of  Samaria,  who  could,  of  course,  not  grasp 
the  full  meaning,  but  understood  sufficiently  its  immediate  practical  applica- 
tion to  the  question  of  dispute  between  the  Samaritans  and  the  Jews  con- 
cerning the  worship  on  Gerizim  or  Jerusalem. 

2 There  is  a remarkable  variation  of  reading  in  John  1 : 18  between  /xovo - 
yevijs  & e 6 s,  one  who  is  God  only-begotten , and  6 noyoyevrjs  vt6s , the  only-begotten 
Son.  (A  third  reading  : 6 novoyevhs  &e6s,  “ the  only -begotten  God,”  found  in 

and  33,  arose  simply  from  a combination  of  the  two  readings,  the  article 
being  improperly  transferred  from  the  second  to  the  first.)  The  two  readings 
are  of  equal  antiquity  ; &e6s  is  supported  by  the  oldest  Greek  MSS.,  nearly  all 
Alexandrian  or  Egyptian  (J$*  BC*L,  also  the  Peshitto  Syr.)  ; vl6s  by  the  oldest 
versions  (Itala  Vulg.,  Curet.  Syr.,  also  by  the  secondary  uncials  and  all  known 
cursives  except  33).  The  usual  abbreviations  in  the  uncial  MS.,  ©C  for  fre6t 
and  TC  for  vt6s,  may  easily  be  confounded.  The  connection  of  novoyevfis  with 


§ 72.  JOHN  AND  TIIE  GOSPEL  OF  LOVE. 


553 


the  bosom ' of  the  Father,  he  and  he  alone  (ejceti/o?)  declared 
him  and  brought  to  light,  once  and  forever,  the  hidden  mystery 
of  his  being.3 

This  perfect  knowledge  of  the  Father,  Christ  claims  himself 
in  that  remarkable  passage  in  Matthew  (11  : 27)  which  strik- 
ingly confirms  the  essential  harmony  of  the  Johannean  and 
Synoptical  representations  of  Christ. 

John  (and  he  alone)  calls  Christ  the  “ Logos  ” of  God,  i.e .,  the 
embodiment  of  God  and  the  organ  of  all  his  revelations.3  As 

6s  is  less  natural  than  with  vl6s,  although  John  undoubtedly  could  call  the 
Son  freJs  (not  6 &€<n),  and  did  so  in  ver.  1.  Mouuyev^s  &eos  simply  combines 
the  two  attributes  of  the  Logos,  freos,  ver.  1,  and  novoyev^s,  ver.  14.  For  a 
learned  and  ingenious  defence  of  beos  see  Hort’s  Dissertations  (Cambridge, 
1877),  Westcott  on  St.  John  (p.  71),  and  Westcott  and  Hort’s  Gr.  Test.  Introd. 
and  Append .,  p.  74.  Tischendorf  and  nearly  all  the  German  commentators 
(except  Weiss)  adopt  vl6s , and  Dr.  Abbot,  of  Cambridge,  Mass. , has  written 
two  very  able  papers  in  favor  of  this  reading,  one  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for 
1861,  pp.  840-872,  and  another  in  the  “ Unitarian  Review  ” for  June,  1875.  The 
Westminster  Revision  first  adopted  “God”  in  the  text,  but  afterwards  put  it 
on  the  margin.  Both  readings  are  intrinsically  unobjectionable,  and  the  sense 
is  essentially  the  same.  M ovoyev^s  does  not  necessarily  convey  the  Nicene  idea 
of  eternal  generation,  but  simply  the  unique  character  and  superiority  of  the 
eternal  and  uncreated  sonship  of  Christ  over  the  sonship  of  believers  which  is 
a gift  of  grace.  It  shows  his  intimate  relation  to  the  Father,  as  the  Pauline 
TparrdroKos  his  sovereign  relation  to  the  world. 

1 Lit.  “towards  the  bosom”  (els  rbv  k6\ttov),  i.e.,  leaning  on,  and  moving 
to  the  bosom.  It  expresses  the  union  of  motion  and  rest  and  the  closest  and 
tenderest  intimacy,  as  between  mother  and  child,  like  the  German  term 
Schoosskind , bosom-cliild.  Comp,  tt pbs  rbv  Se6u  in  ver.  1 and  Prov.  8 : 30,  where 
Wisdom  (the  Logos)  says:  “I  was  near  Him  as  one  brought  up  with  Him, 
and  I was  daily  his  delight,  rejoicing  always  before  him.” 

2 With  this  sentence  the  Prologue  returns  to  the  beginning  and  suggests  the 
best  reason  why  Christ  is  called  Logos.  He  is  the  Exegete,  the  Expounder, 
the  Interpreter  of  the  hidden  being  of  God.  “The  word  i^yhaaro  is  used  by 
classical  writers  of  the  interpretation  of  divine  mysteries.  The  absence  of 
the  object  in  the  original  is  remarkable.  Thus  the  literal  rendering  is  simply, 
he  made  declaration  (Vulg.  ipse  enarravit).  Comp.  Acts  15  : 14.  Westcott, 
in  loc.  See  the  classical  parallels  in  Wetstein. 

3 John  1:1,  14  : 1 John  1:1;  Rev.  19  : 13.  The  Logos  theory  of  John 
is  the  fruitful  germ  of  the  speculations  of  the  Greek  church  on  the  mysteries 
of  the  incarnation  and  the  trinity.  See  my  ed.  of  Lange’s  Com.  on  John , 
pp.  51  and  55  sqq. , where  also  the  literature  is  given.  On  the  latest  discus- 
sions see  Weiss  in  the  sixth  ed.  of  Meyer’s  Com.  on  John  (1880),  pp.  49  sqq. 
A 6yos  means  both  ratio  and  oratio , reason  and  speech,  which  are  inseparably 


554 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


the  human  reason  or  thought  is  expressed  in  word,  and  as  the 
word  is  the  medium  of  making  our  thoughts  known  to  others, 
so  God  is  known  to  himself  and  to  the  world  in  and  through 
Christ  as  the  personal  Word.  While  “Logos”  designates  the 
metaphysical  and  intellectual  relation,  the  term  “ Son  ” desig- 
nates the  moral  relation  of  Christ  to  God,  as  a relation  of  love, 
and  the  epithet  “ only-begotten  ” or  “ only -born  ” (/ wvoyevrfs ) 
raises  his  sonship  as  entirely  unique  above  every  other  son  ship, 
which  is  only  a reflection  of  it.  It  is  a blessed  relation  of  infi- 
nite knowledge  and  infinite  love.  The  Logos  is  eternal,  he  is 
personal,  he  is  divine.1  He  was  in  the  beginning  before  crea- 
tion or  from  eternity.  He  is,  on  the  one  hand,  distinct  from 
God  and  in  the  closest  communion  with  him  (7 rpo?  rov  Seov) ; 
on  the  other  hand  he  is  himself  essentially  divine,  and  there- 
fore called  “ God  ” (3eo9,  but  not  6 3eo?).a 

connected.  “ Logos,”  being  masculine  in  Greek,  is  better  fitted  as  a designa- 
tion of  Christ  than  our  neuter  “ Word.”  Hence  Ewald,  in  defiance  of  Ger- 
man grammar,  renders  it  “ der  Wort."  On  the  apocalyptic  designation 
6 \6yos  tov  Seov  and  on  the  christology  of  the  Apocalypse,  see  Gebhardt, 
l.  c.,  94  and  333  sqq.  On  Philo’s  idea  of  the  Logos  I refer  to  Schiirer, 
Neutestam.  Zeitgeschichte , pp.  648  sqq.,  and  the  works  of  Gfrorer,  Zeller, 
Frankel,  etc. , there  quoted. 

1 These  three  ideas  are  contained  in  the  first  verse  of  the  Gospel,  which  has 
stimulated  and  puzzled  the  profoundest  minds  from  Origen  and  Augustin  to 
Schelling  and  Goethe.  Mark  the  unique  union  of  transparent  simplicity  and 
inexhaustible  depth,  and  the  symmetry  of  the  three  clauses.  The  subject 
(A.<fyos)  and  the  verb  ( l\v ) are  three  times  repeated.  “ The  three  clauses  con- 
tain all  that  it  is  possible  for  man  to  realize  as  to  the  essential  nature  of  the 
Word  in  relation  to  time  and  mode  of  being  and  character  : He  was  (1)  in  the 
beginning : He  was  (2)  with  God : He  was  (3)  God.  At  the  same  time  these 
three  clauses  answer  to  the  three  great  moments  of  the  Incarnation  of  the 
Word  declared  in  ver.  14.  He  who  ‘ was  God,’  became  flesh  : He  who  ‘ was 
with  God,’  tabernacled  among  us  (comp.  1 John  1:2):  He  who  ‘was  in  the 
beginning,’  became  (in  time).”  Westcott  (in  Speaker’s  Com.).  A similar  in- 
terpretation is  given  by  Lange.  The  personality  of  the  Logos  is  denied  by 
Beyschlag.  See  Notes. 

2 Here  we  have  the  germ  (but  the  germ  only)  of  the  orthodox  distinction 
between  unity  of  essence  and  trinity  of  persons  or  hypostases  ; also  of  the 
distinction  between  an  immanent,  eternal  trinity,  and  an  economical  trinity 
which  is  revealed  in  time  (in  the  works  of  creation,  redemption,  and  sanctifi* 
cation).  A Hebrew  monotheist  could  not  conceive  of  an  eternal  and  inde- 
pendent being  of  a different  essence  ( krcpooixris ) existing  besides  the  one  God. 
This  would  be  dualism. 


§ 72.  JOHN  AND  TIIE  GOSPEL  OF  LOVE. 


555 


This  pre-existent  Logos  is  the  agent  of  the  creation  of  all 
things  visible  and  invisible.1  He  is  the  fulness  and  fountain  of 
life  ( rj  £(orj,  the  true,  immortal  life,  as  distinct  from  /9/o?,  the 
natural,  mortal  life),  and  light  (to  </>«<?,  which  includes  intel- 
lectual and  moral  truth,  reason  and  conscience)  to  all  men. 
Whatever  elements  of  truth,  goodness,  and  beauty  may  be 
found  shining  like  stars  and  meteors  in  the  darkness  of  heathen- 
dom, must  be  traced  to  the  Logos,  the  universal  Life-giver  and 
Illuminator. 

Here  Paul  and  John  meet  again ; both  teach  the  agency  of 
Christ  in  the  creation,  but  John  more  clearly  connects  him  with 
all  the  preparatory  revelations  before  the  incarnation.  This  ex- 
tension of  the  Logos  revelation  explains  the  high  estimate  which 
some  of  the  Greek  fathers  (Justin  Martyr,  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, Origen)  put  upon  the  Hellenic,  especially  the  Pla- 
tonic philosophy,  as  a training-school  of  the  heathen  mind  for 
Christ. 

The  Logos  revealed  himself  to  every  man,  but  in  a special 
manner  to  his  own  chosen  people ; and  this  revelation  culmi- 
nated in  John  the  Baptist,  who  summed  up  in  himself  the 
meaning  of  the  law  and  the  prophets,  and  pointed  to  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  as  “ the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the 
world.” 

At  last  the  Logos  became  flesh.2  He  completed  his  revela- 

1 1 : 3,  with  a probable  allusion  to  Gen.  1:3,  “ God  said as  4v  refers 
to  bereshith,  Gen.  1 : 1.  The  negative  repetition  ou5e  ev,  prorsus  nihil , not 
even  one  thing  (stronger  than  ov 5«V,  nihil),  excludes  every  form  of  dualism 
(against  the  Gnostics),  and  makes  the  irdvra  absolutely  unlimited.  The 
Socinian  interpretation,  which  confines  it  to  the  moi'al  creation,  is  gram- 
matically impossible. 

2 1 : 14  : 6 \6yos  nhpl;  lylvero,  a sentence  of  immeasurable  import,  the  lead- 
ing idea  not  only  of  the  Prologue,  but  of  the  Christian  religion  and  of  the  his- 
tory of  mankind.  It  marks  the  close  of  the  preparation  for  Christianity  and 
the  beginning  of  its  introduction  into  the  human  race.  Bengel  calls  attention 
to  the  threefold  antithetic  correspondence  between  vers.  1 and  14  : 

The  Logos 


was  (Ijv)  in  the  beginning 
God, 

with  God. 


became  (fy&ero) 
flesh, 

and  dwelt  among  us. 


556 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


tion  by  uniting  himself  with  man  once  and  forever  in  all  things, 
except  sin.1  The  Hebraizing  term  “flesh”  best  expresses  his 
condescension  to  our  fallen  condition  and  the  complete  reality 
of  his  humanity  as  an  object  of  sense,  visible  and  tangible,  in 
strong  contrast  with  his  immaterial  divinity.  It  includes  not 
only  the  body  (o-w/xa),  but  also  a human  soul  (\f ru xfj)  and  a ra- 
tional spirit  (i /oO?,  irvevfia) ; for  John  ascribes  them  all  to  Christ. 
To  use  a later  terminology,  the  incarnation  (eWap/oooY?,  incar- 
natio)  is  only  a stronger  term  for  the  assumption  of  humanity 
( ivavSpMTrricnSy  Menschwerdung).  The  Logos  became  man — not 
partially  but  totally,  not  apparently  but  really,  not  transiently 
but  permanently,  not  by  ceasing  to  be  divine,  nor  by  being 
changed  into  a man,  but  by  an  abiding,  personal  union  with 
man.  He  is  henceforth  the  God  man.  He  tabernacled  on  earth 
as  the  true  Shekinah,  and  manifested  to  his  disciples  the  glory 
of  the  only  begotten  which  shone  from  the  veil  of  his  humanity.2 
This  is  the  divine-human  glory  in  the  state  of  humiliation  as 
distinct  from  the  divine  glory  in  his  pre-existent  state,  and  from 
the  final  and  perfect  manifestation  of  his  glory  in  the  state  of 
exaltation  in  which  his  disciples  shall  share.3 

The  fourth  Gospel  is  a commentary  on  the  ideas  of  the  Pro- 
logue. It  was  written  for  the  purpose  that  the  readers  may 
believe  “ that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  (the  promised  Messiah),  the 
Son  of  God  (in  the  sense  of  the  only  begotten  and  eternal  Son), 
and  that  believing  they  may  have  life  in  his  name.” 4 

III.  The  Work  of  Christ  (Soteriology).  This  implies  the 
conquest  over  sin  and  Satan,  and  the  procurement  of  eternal 
life.  Christ  appeared  without  sin,  to  the  end  that  he  might  de- 
stroy the  works  of  the  devil,  who  was  a liar  and  murderer  from 

1 Paul  expresses  the  same  idea  : God  sent  his  Son  “ in  the  likeness  of  the 
flesh  of  sin,”  Rom.  8:3;  comp.  Heb.  2 : 17  ; 4 : 15.  See  the  note  at  the  close 
of  the  section. 

2 1 : 14  : iaK^vaxTfv  iv  rjixiv^  in  allusion  to  the  indwelling  of  Jehovah  in  the 
holy  of  holies  of  the  tabernacle  (aKr}vfj)  and  the  temple.  The  humanity  of 
Christ  is  now  the  true  tabernacle  of  God,  and  the  believers  are  the  spectators 

of  that  glory.  Comp.  Rev.  7 : 15  ; 21  : 3. 

> John  17  : 5,  24  ; 1 John  3:2.  4 John  20  : 31. 


§ 72.  JOHN  AND  TIIE  GOSPEL  OF  LOVE, 


557 


the  beginning  of  history,  who  first  fell  away  from  the  truth  and 
then  brought  sin  and  death  into  mankind.1  Christ  laid  down 
his  life  and  shed  his  blood  for  his  sheep.  By  this  self -consecra- 
tion in  death  he  became  the  propitiation  (iXacrfios)  for  the  sins 
of  believers  and  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.2  Ilis  blood 
cleanses  from  all  the  guilt  and  contamination  of  sin.  He  is  (in 
the  language  of  the  Baptist)  the  Lamb  of  God  that  bears  and 
takes  away  the  sin  of  the  world ; and  (in  the  unconscious 
prophecy  of  Caiaphas)  he  died  for  the  people.3  He  was  priest 
and  sacrifice  in  one  person.  And  he  continues  his  priestly  func- 
tions, being  our  Advocate  in  Heaven  and  ready  to  forgive  us 
when  we  sin  and  come  to  him  in  true  repentance.4 * 6 

This  is  the  negative  part  of  Christ’s  work,  the  removal  of  the 
obstruction  which  separated  us  from  God.  The  positive  part 
consists  in  the  revelation  of  the  Father,  and  in  the  communica- 
tion of  eternal  life,  which  includes  eternal  happiness.  Pie  is 
himself  the  Life  and  the  Light  of  the  world.  Pie  calls  himself 
the  Way,  the  Truth,  and  the  Life.  In  him  the  true,  the  eternal 
life,  which  was  from  the  beginning  with  the  Father,  appeared 
personally  in  human  form.  He  came  to  communicate  it  to 
men.  He  is  the  bread  of  life  from  heaven,  and  feeds  the 
believers  everywhere  spiritually  without  diminishing,  as  He  fed 
the  five  thousand  physically  with  five  loaves.  That  miracle  is 


1 1 John  3 : 5,  8 ; comp,  the  words  of  Christ,  John  8 : 44. 

2 John  6 : 52-58  ; 10  : 11,  15  ; 1 John  2:2:  avrbs  i\a<r/x6s  4anv  ir cpl  ruv 

apapniv  rjpav,  ov  irepl  rav  Tjperepwv  8e  p6vov,  a\\h.  Kal  vepl  8\ov  rov  k6(T/hov. 
The  universality  of  the  atonement  could  not  be  more  clearly  expressed  ; but 
there  is  a difference  between  universal  sufficiency  and  universal  efficiency. 

3 1 John  1 : 10  ; John  1 : 29  ; 11  : 50  ; comp.  18  : 14. 

4 1 John  2:1:  idu  ns  apipry,  vapdKXyrov  exopev  npbs  rbv  irarepa  'lyaovp 

Xpurrbv  biKaiov. 

6 1 John  1 : 2 : fa)]  i<f>avepd>frri,  /cal  kapdKaptv  Kal  paprvpoupcv  Kal  &irayye\~ 

\opev  i)p7v  r)]v  rV  aluviov  ?\v  irpbs  rbv  irarcpa  Kal  4<f>avepu&ij  Tjpiv. 

Comp.  John  1:4;  5 : 26  ; 14  : 6.  The  passage  1 John  5 : 20  : ovt6s  4<rrtv  6 
aXybivbs  &*bs  Kal  alamos,  is  of  doubtful  application.  The  natural  connec- 
tion of  out  os  with  the  immediately  preceding  Ttjo-oD  Xpiarcp,  and  the  parallel 
passages  where  Christ  is  called  “life,”  favor  the  reference  to  Christ;  while 
the  words  6 b\r)&ivbs  &e6s  suit  better  for  the  Father.  See  Braune,  Huther, 
Ebrard,  Haupt,  Rothe,  in  loc. 


558 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


continued  in  the  mystical  self -communication  of  Christ  to  his 
people.  Whosoever  believes  in  him  has  eternal  life,  which 
begins  here  in  the  new  birth  and  will  be  completed  in  the  res- 
urrection of  the  body.1 

Herein  also  the  Apocalypse  well  agrees  with  the  Gospel  and 
Epistles  of  John.  Christ  is  represented  as  the  victor  of  the 
devil.2  He  is  the  conquering  Lion  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  but 
also  the  suffering  Lamb  slain  for  us.  The  figure  of  the  lamb, 
whether  it  be  referred  to  the  paschal  lamb,  or  to  the  lamb  in 
the  Messianic  passage  of  Isaiah  53  : 7,  expresses  the  idea  of 
atoning  sacrifice  which  is  fully  realized  in  the  death  of  Christ. 
He  “ washed  ” (or,  according  to  another  reading,  he  “ loosed  ”) 
“ us  from  our  sins  by  his  blood  ; ” he  redeemed  men  “ of  every 
tribe,  and  tongue,  and  people,  and  nation,  and  made  them  to  be 
unto  our  God  a kingdom  and  priests.”  The  countless  multi- 
tude of  the  redeemed  “ washed  their  robes  and  made  them 
white  (bright  and  shining)  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb.”  This 
implies  both  purification  and  sanctification ; white  garments 
being  the  symbols  of  holiness.3  Love  was  the  motive  which 
prompted  him  to  give  his  life  for  his  people.4  Great  stress  is 
laid  on  the  resurrection,  as  in  the  Gospel,  where  he  is  called  the 
Resurrection  and  the  Life.  The  exalted  Logos-Messiah  has  the 
keys  of  death  and  Hades.6  He  is  a sharer  in  the  universal 
government  of  God ; he  is  the  mediatorial  ruler  of  the  world, 
“ the  Prince  of  the  kings  of  the  earth,”  “ King  of  kings  and 
Lord  of  lords.”*  The  apocalyptic  seer  likewise  brings  in  the 

1 John  6:47;  and  the  whole  mysterious  discourse  which  explains  the 
spiritual  meaning  of  the  preceding  miracle. 

2 Apoc.  12  : 1-12;  20  : 2.  Comp,  with  1 John  3:8;  John  8 : 44  ; 12  : 31  , 
13  : 2,  27;  14:30;  16:  11. 

3 Apoc.  1 : 6 ; 5 : 6,  9,  12, 13 ; 7 : 14,  etc.  Comp.  John  1 : 29  ; 17  : 19 ; 19  : 36  ; 
1 John  1 : 7 ; 2 : 2 ; 5 : 6.  The  apocalyptic  diminutive  apviov  ( agnellus , lamb- 
kin, pet-lamb)  for  auv6s  is  used  to  sharpen  the  contrast  with  the  Lion.  Paul 
Gerhardt  has  reproduced  it  in  his  beautiful  passion  hymn : u Ein  Lammlein 
geld  und  trdgt  die  Schuld.  ” 

4 Apoc.  1:5:  “ Unto  him  that  loveth  us,”  etc. ; comp.  John  15  : 13  ; 1 John 
3 : 16. 

6 Apoc.  1 : 5,  17,  18 ; 2:8;  comp.  John  5 : 21,  25  ; 6 : 39,  40  • 11  : 25. 

e Apoc.  1 : 5 ; 3 : 21  ; 17  : 14 ; 19  : 16. 


§ 72.  JOHN  AND  TIIE  GOSPEL  OF  LOVE, 


559 


idea  of  life  in  its  highest  sense  as  a reward  of  faith  in  Christ. 
To  those  who  overcome  and  are  faithful  unto  death,  Christ  will 
give  “ a crown  of  life,”  and  a seat  on  his  throne.  lie  “ shall 
guide  them  unto  fountains  of  waters  of  life ; and  God  shall 
wipe  away  every  tear  from  their  eyes.” 1 

IV.  The  Doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (Pneumatology).  This 
is  most  fully  set  forth  in  the  farewell  discourses  of  our  Lord, 
which  are  reported  by  John  exclusively.  The  Spirit  whom 
Christ  promised  to  send  after  his  return  to  the  Father,  is  called 
the  Paraclete , i.e.,  the  Advocate  or  Counsellor,  Helper,  who 
pleads  the  cause  of  the  believers,  directs,  supports,  and  com- 
forts them.2  He  is  “ another  Advocate  ” (a\\o?  i TapdfcXrjros), 
Christ  himself  being  the  first  Advocate  who  intercedes  for  be- 
lievers at  the  throne  of  the  Father,  as  their  eternal  High  priest. 
The  Spirit  proceeds  (eternally)  from  the  Father,  and  was  sent 
by  the  Father  and  the  Son  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.3  He  reveals 

1 Apoc.  2:10;  3 : 21  ; 7 : 17  ; 14  : 1-5  ; 21  : 6,  7 ; 22  : 1-5.  Comp.  Geb- 
bardt,  l.  c.,  106-128,  343-353. 

2 John  14  : 16,  26  ; 15  : 26;  16  : 7.  Comp,  also  1 John  2 : 1,  where  Christ 
is  likewise  called  irapaK\TjTos.  He  is  our  Advocate  objectively  at  the  throne  of 
the  Father,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  our  Advocate  subjectively  in  our  spiritual  ex- 
perience. The  E.  V.  renders  the  word  in  all  these  passages,  except  the  last, 
by  “Comforter”  ( Consolator ),  which  rests  on.  a confusion  of  the  passive 
xapdK\ijTos  with  the  active  xapaKX^Tup.  See  my  notes  in  Lange’s  Corn,  on 
John , pp.  440  sqq.,  468  sqq. 

3 There  is  a distinction  between  the  eternal  procession  (eKirSpevats)  of  the 

Spirit  from  the  Father  ( xapa  rov  narp&s  eKiropeverai,  procedit,  John  15  : 26), 
and  the  temporal  mission  (irf'j uif/is)  of  the  Spirit  from  the  Father  and  the  Son 
(15  : 26,  where  Christ  says  of  the  Spirit : ov  we/upa,  and  14  : 26,  where 
he  says : o it  e juif/  e i 6 nar'/jp  tv  tg?  ovdfiaTt  /xov).  The  Greek  church  to  this 
day  strongly  insists  on  this  distinction,  and  teaches  an  eternal  procession  of 
the  Spirit  from  the  Father  alone,  and  a temporal  mission  of  the  Spirit  by  the 
Father  and  the  Son.  The  difference  between  the  present  iKiropeverai  and  the 
future  seems  to  favor  such  a distinction,  but  the  exclusive  alone  ( yivov ) 

in  regard  to  the  procession  is  an  addition  of  the  Greek  church  as  much  as  the 
Filioque  is  an  addition  of  the  Latin  church  to  the  original  Nicene  Creed.  It 
is  doubtful  whether  John  meant  to  make  a metaphysical  distinction  between 
procession  and  mission.  But  the  distinction  between  the  eternal  trinity  of 
the  divine  being  and  the  temporal  trinity  of  the  divine  revelation  has  an  exe- 
getical  basis  in  the  pre-existence  of  the  Logos  and  the  Spirit.  The  trinitarian 
revelation  reflects  the  trinitarian  essence ; in  other  words,  God  reveals  him- 
self as  he  is,  as  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit.  We  have  a right  to  reason  from  the 


660 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Christ  to  the  heart  and  glorifies  him  (e/xe  Bo^dcreC) ; he  bears 
witness  to  him  ( fiapTvprjaet  irepl  i/iov)  ; he  calls  to  remembrance 
and  explains  his  teaching  (u/xa?  iravra  /cal  v7rop,vr)<rei, 

vpas  irdvra  a ehrov  vplv  eya>)  ; he  leads  the  disciples  into  the 
whole  truth  ( ohrjyrja-ei  vpas  cfc  ttjv  d\r)$eLav  irdcrav) ; he  takes 
out  of  the  fulness  of  Christ  and  shows  it  to  them  (e/c  rov  ipov 
\apf3dvei  /cal  dvayyeXel  vplv).  The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  Medi- 
ator and  Intercessor  between  Christ  and  the  believer,  as  Christ 
is  the  Mediator  between  God  and  the  world.  He  is  the  Spirit 
of  truth  and  of  holiness.  He  convicts  (eAiy^et)  the  world,  that 
io,  all  men  who  come  under  his  influence,  in  respect  of  sin  (7 repl 
dpaprias),  of  righteousness  (Bi/caiocrvvr]*;),  and  of  judgment  (/ cpi - 
aecos:) ; and  this  conviction  will  result  either  in  the  conversion, 
or  in  the  impenitence  of  the  sinner.  The  operation  of  the 
Spirit  accompanies  the  preaching  of  the  word,  and  is  always 
internal  in  the  sphere  of  the  heart  and  conscience.  He  is  one 
of  the  three  witnesses  and  gives  efficacy  to  the  other  two  wit- 
nesses of  Christ  on  earth,  the  baptism  (to  vBcop ),  and  the  atoning 
death  (to  alpa)  of  Christ.1 

Y.  Christian  Life.  It  begins  with  a new  birth  from  above 
or  from  the  Holy  Spirit.  Believers  are  children  of  God  who 
are  “ born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the 
will  of  man,  but  of  God.”  a It  is  a “ new  ” birth  compared 

revelation  of  God  to  his  nature,  but  with  proper  reverence  and  modesty  ; for 
who  can  exhaust  the  ocean  of  the  Deity ! 

1 1 John  5 : 8.  There  are  different  interpretations  of  water  and  blood  : 
1st,  reference  to  the  miraculous  flow  of  blood  and  water  from  the  wounded 
side  of  Christ,  John  19  : 34  ; 2d,  Christ’s  baptism,  and  Christ’s  atoning-  death  ; 
3d,  the  two  sacraments  which  he  instituted  as  perpetual  memorials.  I would 
adopt  the  last  view,  if  it  were  not  for  rb  al/xa,  which  nowhere  designates  the 
sacrament  of  the  Lord’s  Supper,  and  more  naturally  refers  to  the  blood  of 
Christ  shed  for  the  remission  of  sins.  The  passage  on  the  three  heavenly 
witnesses  in  ver.  7,  formerly  quoted  as  a proof  text  for  the  doctrine  of  the 
trinity,  is  now  generally  given  up  as  a mediajval  interpolation,  and  must  be 
rejected  on  internal  as  well  as  external  grounds  ; for  John  would  never  have 
written:  “the  Father,  the  Word , and  the  Spirit,”  but  either  “the  Father, 
the  Son , and  the  Spirit,”  or  “ Ood , the  Word  (Logos),  and  the  Spirit.” 

2 John  1 : 13  : rtKva  &eov  . . . i/t  &eov  iyfvvh&r)<rav . The  classical  section 
on  the  new  birth  is  Christ’s  discourse  with  Nicodemus,  ch.  3 : 1-15.  The 
terms  yeyyrj&rji/ai  Zyafrey,  to  be  born  anew,  afresh,  or  from  above , i.e.,  from 


§ 72.  JOHN  AND  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LOVE.  561 

with  the  old,  a birth  “ from  God,”  as  compared  with  that  from 
man,  a birth  from  the  Iloly  “ Spirit,”  in  distinction  from  car- 
nal birth,  a birth  “ from  heaven,”  as  opposed  to  earthly  birth. 
The  life  of  the  believer  does  not  descend  through  the  channels 
of  fallen  nature,  but  requires  a creative  act  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
through  the  preaching  of  the  gospel.  The  life  of  the  regenerate 
is  free  from  the  principle  and  power  of  sin.  “ Whosoever  is 
begotten  of  God  doetli  no  sin,  because  his  seed  abideth  in  him ; 
and  he  cannot  sin  because  he  is  begotten  of  God.”  1 Over  him 
the  devil  has  no  power.3 

The  new  life  is  the  life  of  Christ  in  the  soul.  It  is  eternal  in- 
trinsically and  as  to  duration.  Eternal  life  in  man  consists  in  the 
knowledge  of  the  only  true  God  and  of  Jesus  Christ — a knowl- 
edge which  implies  full  sympathy  and  communion  of  love.3  It  be- 
gins here  in  faith ; hence  the  oft-repeated  declaration  that  he  who 
believes  in  Christ  has  (e^ei)  eternal  life.4  But  it  will  not  appear 
in  its  full  development  till  the  time  of  his  glorious  manifestation, 

heaven,  comp.  3 : 31 ; 19  : 11  (the  reference  is  not  to  a repetition,  again,  a 
second  time,  ir d\iv,  Sevrepov,  but  to  an  analogous  process) ; 3 : 6,  7 ; yew-p^vai 

vSaros  Kal  iryev/uaros,  of  water  (baptism)  and  spirit,  ver.  5 ; 4k  &eov,  of  God, 
4k  t ov  ovpavod,  from  heaven,  are  equivalent.  John  himself  most  frequently 
uses  4k  &eov,  1 : 13  ; 1 John  2 : 29  ; 3 : 9 ; 4 : 7 ; 5 : 1,  4,  18.  He  does  not  use 
fa /aryevvaop.ai,  to  be  begotten  or  born  again  (but  it  occurs  in  Justin  Martyr’s 
quotation,  Apol.  I.  61 ; also  in  1 Pet.  1 : 23,  avayeyevirq/uevoi  . . 8ia  A 4 you 
fovros  ov,  and  1 Pet.  1 : 3,  avayevi 'haas  els  4\Trl8a),  and  the  noun 

avayewrjo-is,  regeneration,  is  not  found  at  all  in  the  Greek  Test,  (though  often 
in  the  Greek  fathers) ; but  the  analogous  TraXiyyeveala  occurs  once  in  connec- 
tion with  baptism,  Tit.  3 : 5 ( eaoxrev  hfias  8ib  A ovrpov  iraXiyyevealas  Kal  avaKat - 
vaxreoos  wevaaros  ayiov ),  and  once  in  a more  comprehensive  sense  of  the  final 
restitution  and  consummation  of  all  things,  Matt.  19  : 18.  Paul  speaks  of  tbe 
new  creature  in  Christ  (Kaivb  kt'ktis , 2 Cor.  5 : 17)  and  of  the  new  man  ( Katvbs 
&vfrpwrros,  Eph.  4 : 24).  In  the  Rabbinical  theology  regeneration  meant  simply 
the  change  of  the  external  status  of  a proselyte  to  Judaism. 

1 1 John  3:9;  comp.  5 : 18.  But  ch.  5 : 16  implies  that  a “ brother”  may 
sin,  though  not  “unto  death,”  and  ch.  1 : 10  also  excludes  the  idea  of  abso- 
lute freedom  from  sin  in  the  present  state. 

8 1 John  5 : 18  : 6 Trovripbs  oi>x  dirrerat  avrov. 

3 John  17  : 3,  words  of  our  Lord  in  the  sacerdotal  prayer. 

4 1 John  5 : 12,  13  : & ex<*v  rbv  vibv  ex*i  rrbv  oldviov. 

Comp,  the  words  of  Christ,  John  3 : 36 ; 5 : 24  ; 6 : 47,  54  ; and  of  the  Evaiv 
gelist,  20 : 31. 


562 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


when  we  shall  be  like  him  and  see  him  even  as  he  is.1  Faith  is 
the  medium  of  communication,  the  bond  of  union  with  Christ. 
Faith  is  the  victory  over  the  world,  already  here  in  principle.2 

John’s  idea  of  life  eternal  takes  the  place  of  Paul’s  idea  of 
righteousness,  but  both  agree  in  the  high  conception  of  faith  as 
the  one  indispensable  condition  of  securing  it  by  uniting  us  to 
Christ,  who  is  both  righteousness  and  life  eternal.3 

The  life  of  the  Christian,  moreover,  is  a communion  with 
Christ  and  with  the  Father  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  Our  Lord 
prayed  before  his  passion  that  the  believers  of  that  and  all 
future  ages  might  be  one  with  him,  even  as  he  is  one  with  the 
Father,  and  that  they  may  enjoy  his  glory.  John  writes  his 
first  Epistle  for  the  purpose  that  his  readers  may  have  “ fel- 
lowship with  the  Father,  and  with  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and 
that  thus  their  joy  may  be  made  full.”4 5  This  fellowship  is 
only  another  word  for  love,  and  love  to  God  is  inseparable  from 
love  to  the  brethren.  “ If  God  so  loved  us,  we  also  ought  to 
love  one  another.”  “ God  is  love ; and  he  that  abideth  in  love 
abideth  in  God  and  God  abideth  in  him.”  Love  to  the  brethren 
is  the  true  test  of  practical  Christianity.6  This  brotherly  fel- 
lowship is  the  true  essence  of  the  Church,  which  is  nowhere 
even  mentioned  in  John’s  Gospel  and  First  Epistle.6 

Love  to  God  and  to  the  brethren  is  no  mere  sentiment,  but 
an  active  power,  and  manifests  itself  in  the  keeping  of  God’s 
commandments.7 

1 1 John  3:2:  otba/. icv  on  ihv  (pavepoo&ji  (he,  or  it),  Zfxoioi  avrcp  4<r<f/ue&a,  8n 
oif/d/ueSa  avrbu  ica&dos  iffnv. 

2 1 John  5:4:  aurrj  iarlv  rj  vIkt)  tj  viK^aatra  rbv  k6<t/ulov,  tj  irlans  T)nu>v. 

3 John  uses  the  term  Succuotrvvri , but  never  biKa'uoo-is  or  8tKai6a>.  A striking 
example  of  religious  agreement  and  theological  difference. 

4 John  17 : 22-24 ; 1 John  1 : 3,  4. 

5 1 John  3 ; 11,  23  ; 4 : 7,  11  ; comp.  John  13  : 34,  35  ; 15  : 12,  17. 

6 The  word  iKK\7i<ria  occurs  in  the  third  Epistle,  but  in  the  sense  of  a local 
congregation.  Of  the  external  organization  of  the  church  John  is  silent ; he 
does  not  even  report  the  institution  of  the  sacraments,  though  he  speaks  of 
the  spiritual  meaning  of  baptism  (John  3:5),  and  indirectly  of  the  spiritual 
meaning  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  (6  : 53-56). 

7 1 John  2:3,  4 ; 3 : 22,  24 ; 4:7,  11 ; 5 : 2,  3 ; 2 John  ver.  6 ; comp,  the 
Gospel,  14  : 15,  21  : “ If  ye  love  me,  ye  will  keep  my  commandments,”  etc. 


§ 72.  JOHN  AND  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LOVE. 


563 


Here  again  John  and  Paul  meet  in  the  idea  of  love,  as  the 
highest  of  the  Christian  graces  which  abides  forever  when  faith 
shall  have  passed  into  sight,  and  hope  into  fruition.1 

Notes. 

The  incarnation  is  expressed  by  John  briefly  and  tersely  in  the  phrase 

“The  Word  became  flesh  ” (1 : 14). 

I.  The  meaning  of  adpf-.  Apollinaris  confined  “ flesh  ” to  the  body, 
including  the  animal  soul,  and  taught  that  the  Logos  occupied  the  place 
of  the  rational  soul  or  spirit  (»ovty  nvcvpa)  in  Christ ; that  consequently 
he  was  not  a full  man,  but  a sort  of  middle  being  between  God  and  man, 
half  divine  and  half  human,  not  wholly  divine  and  wholly  human.  This 
view  was  condemned  as  heretical  by  the  Nicene  church,  but  renewed 
substantially  by  the  Tubingen  school,  as  being  the  doctrine  of  John. 
According  to  Baur  (/.  c.,  p.  363)  aapg  « yevero  is  not  equivalent  to  dv^panos 
eyevcro,  but  means  that  the  Logos  assumed  a human  body  and  continued 
otherwise  the  same.  The  incarnation  was  only  an  incidental  phenome- 
non in  the  unchanging  personality  of  the  Logos.  Moreover  the  flesh 
of  Christ  was  not  like  that  of  other  men,  but  almost  immaterial,  so  as  to 
be  able  to  walk  on  the  lake  (John  6 : 16 ; comp.  7 : 10, 15  ; 8 : 59  ; 10  : 39). 
To  this  exegesis  we  object : 

1.  John  expressly  ascribes  to  Christ  a soul , 10  : 11,  15,  17 ; 12  : 27  (»; 
y\rv\r]  pov  TerdpaKTai ),  and  a spirit , 11  : 33  (evffipiprjaaTO  tu>  nveupan)  ; 
13  : 21  (e Tapax^rj  ra  nve  vpari)  \ 19  : 30  (napebooKev  to  nvevpa).  It  may  be 
said  that  nvevpa  is  here  nothing  more  than  the  animal  soul,  because  the 
same  affection  is  attributed  to  both,  and  because  it  was  surrendered  in 
death.  But  Christ  calls  himself  in  John  frequently  “ the  Son  of  man  ” 
(1 : 52,  etc.),  and  once  “a  man”  (avZpconos,  8 : 40),  which  certainly  must 
include  the  more  important  intellectual  and  spiritual  part  as  well  as  the 
body. 

2.  “ Flesh  ” is  often  used  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament  for  the  whole 
man,  as  in  the  phrase  “all  flesh”  ( naa-a  aap£,  every  mortal  man),  or  pla 
adpg  (John  17  : 2 ; Rom.  3 : 20 ; 1 Cor.  1 : 29 ; Gal.  2 : 16).  In  this  pas- 
sage it  suited  John’s  idea  better  than  dv?spa>nos,  because  it  more  strongly 
expresses  the  condescension  of  the  Logos  to  the  human  nature  in  its 
present  condition,  with  its  weakness,  trials,  temptations,  and  sufferings. 
He  completely  identified  himself  with  our  earthly  lot,  and  became  homo- 
geneous with  us,  even  to  the  likeness,  though  not  the  essence,  of  sin 
(Rom.  8:3;  comp.  Heb.  2 : 14 ; 5 : 8,  9).  “Flesh”  then,  when  ascribed 
to  Christ,  has  the  same  comprehensive  meaning  in  John  as  it  has  in 
Paul  (comp,  also  1 Tim.  3 : 16).  It  is  animated  flesh,  and  the  soul  of 
that  flesh  contains  the  spiritual  as  well  as  the  physical  life. 

1 Rom.  13  : 7-10 ; 1 Cor.  13  : 1-13. 


564 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


II.  Another  difficulty  is  presented  by  the  verb  cycWo.  The  cham- 
pions of  the  modern  Kenosis  theory  (Thomasius,  Gess,  Ebrard,  Godet, 
etc.),  while  differing  from  the  Apollinarian  substitution  of  the  Logos  for 
a rational  human  soul  in  Christ,  assert  that  the  Logos  himself  became 
a human  soul  by  voluntary  transformation ; and  so  they  explain  cycWo 
and  the  famous  Pauline  phrase  Icivtov  cKevtoo-ev,  pop(f>rjv  8ov\ov  XaftJov 
(Phil.  2 : 7).  As  the  water  was  changed  into  wine  at  Cana  (2:9:  to  v8u>p 
olvov  ycyevrjfxtvov),  so  the  Logos  in  infinite  self-denial  changed  his  divine 
being  into  a human  being  during  the  state  of  his  humiliation,  and  thus 
led  a single  life,  not  a doable  life  (as  the  Chalcedonian  theory  of  two 
complete  natures  simultaneously  coexisting  in  the  same  person  from 
the  manger  to  the  cross  seems  to  imply).  But 

1.  The  verb  eyevcro  must  be  understood  in  agreement  with  the  parallel 
passages  : “ he  came  in  the  flesh,”  1 John  4 : 2 (eV  vapid  DrjXv^ora)  ; 

2 John  7 (epxopevov  eV  (rapid),  with  this  difference,  that  “became”  indi- 
cates the  realness  of  Christ’s  manhood,  “ came  ” the  continuance  of  his 
godhood.  Compare  also  Paul’s  expression,  e^avep^rj  <?V  vapid , 1 Tim. 

3 : 16. 

2.  Whatever  may  be  the  objections  to  the  Chalcedonian  dyophysitism, 
they  cannot  be  removed  by  running  the  Kenosis  to  the  extent  of  a self- 
suspension of  the  Logos  or  an  actual  surrender  of  his  essential  attri- 
butes ; for  this  is  a metaphysical  impossibility,  and  inconsistent  with 
the  unchangeableness  of  God  and  the  intertrinitarian  process.  The 
Logos  did  not  cease  to  be  God  when  he  entered  into  the  human  state  of 
existence,  nor  did  he  cease  to  be  man  when  he  returned  to  the  state  of 
divine  glory  which  he  had  with  the  Father  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world. 

III.  Beyschlag  (Die  Christologie  des  H.  T.,  p.  168)  denies  the  identity 
of  the  Logos  with  Christ,  and  resolves  the  Logos  into  a divine  principle , 
instead  of  a person.  “ Der  Logos  ist  nicJit  die  Person  Christi  . . . sender  n 
er  ist  das  gottheitliche  Princip  dieser  menschlicken  Person  lick7ceit .”  He 
assumes  a gradual  unfolding  of  the  Logos  principle  in  the  human  per- 
son of  Christ.  But  the  personality  of  the  Logos  is  taught  in  vers.  1-3, 
and  iyev€To  denotes  a completed  act.  We  must  remember,  however,  that 
personality  in  the  trinity  and  personality  of  the  Logos  are  different  from 
personality  of  man.  Human  speech  is  inadequate  to  express  the  dis- 
tinction. 

§ 73.  Heretical  Perversions  of  the  Apostolic  Teaching . 

(Comp,  my  Hist,  of  the  Ap.  Ch.,  pp.  649-674.) 

The  three  types  of  doctrine  which  we  have  briefly  unfolded, 
exhibit  Christianity  in  the  whole  fulness  of  its  life ; and  they 
form  the  theme  for  the  variations  of  the  succeeding  ages  of  the 


§ 73.  PERVERSIONS  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  TEACHING.  5G5 

church.  Christ  is  the  key-note,  harmonizing  all  the  discords 
and  resolving  all  the  mysteries  of  the  history  of  his  kingdom. 

But  this  heavenly  body  of  apostolic  truth  is  confronted  with 
the  ghost  of  heresy;  as  were  the  divine  miracles  of  Moses  with 
the  satanic  juggleries  of  the  Egyptians,  and  as  Christ  was  with 
demoniacal  possessions.  The  more  mightily  the  spirit  of  truth 
rises,  the  more  active  becomes  the  spirit  of  falsehood.  “ Where 
God  builds  a church  the  devil  builds  a chapel  close  by.”  But  in 
the  hands  of  Providence  all  errors  must  redound  to  the  unfold- 
ing and  the  final  victory  of  the  truth.  They  stimulate  inquiry 
and  compel  defence.  Satan  himself  is  that  “ power  which  con- 
stantly wills  the  bad,  and  ivories  the  good.”  Heresies  in  a dis- 
ordered world  are  relatively  necessary  and  negatively  justifiable ; 
though  the  teachers  of  them  are,  of  course,  not  the  less  guilty. 
“ It  must  needs  be,  that  scandals  come ; but  woe  to  that  man 
by  whom  the  scandal  cometh.” 1 

The  heresies  of  the  apostolic  age  are,  respectively,  the  carica- 
tures of  the  several  types  of  the  true  doctrine.  Accordingly  we 
distinguish  three  fundamental  forms  of  heresy,  which  reappear, 
with  various  modifications,  in  almost  every  subsequent  period. 
In  this  respect,  as  in  others,  the  apostolic  period  stands  as  the 
type  of  the  whole  future ; and  the  exhortations  and  warnings  of 
the  New  Testament  against  false  doctrine  have  force  for  every 
age. 

1.  The  Judaizing  tendency  is  the  heretical  counterpart  of 
Jewish  Christianity.  It  so  insists  on  the  unity  of  Christianity 
with  Judaism,  as  to  sink  the  former  to  the  level  of  the  latter, 
and  to  make  the  gospel  no  more  than  an  improvement  or  a per- 
fected law.  It  regards  Christ  as  a mere  prophet,  a second 
Moses ; and  denies,  or  at  least  wholly  overlooks,  his  divine 
nature  and  his  priestly  and  kingly  offices.  The  Judaizers  were 
Jews  in  fact,  and  Christians  only  in  appearance  and  in  name. 
They  held  circumcision  and  the  whole  moral  and  ceremonial 

’Matt.  18:7;  1 Cor.  11:19:  “There  must  be  also  heresies  (factions) 
among  you,  that  they  who  are  approved  may  be  made  manifest  among  you.” 
Comp.  Acts  20  : 30  ; 1 Tim.  4 : 1 ; 2 Pet.  2:1-3. 


566 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


law  of  Moses  to  be  still  binding,  and  the  observance  of  them 
necessary  to  salvation.  Of  Christianity  as  a new,  free,  and  uni- 
versal religion,  they  had  no  conception.  Hence  they  hated  Paul, 
the  liberal  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  as  a dangerous  apostate  and 
revolutionist,  impugned  his  motives,  and  everywhere,  especially 
in  Galatia  and  Corinth,  labored  to  undermine  his  authority  in 
the  churches.  The  epistles  of  Paul,  especially  that  to  the  Gala- 
tians, can  never  be  properly  understood,  unless  their  opposition 
to  this  false  Judaizing  Christianity  be  continually  kept  in  view. 

The  same  heresy,  more  fully  developed,  appears  in  the  second 
century  under  the  name  of  Ebionism. 

2.  The  opposite  extreme  is  a false  Gentile  Christianity,  which 
may  be  called  the  Paganizing  or  Gnostic  heresy.  It  is  as  rad- 
ical and  revolutionary  as  the  other  is  contracted  and  reactionary. 
It  violently  breaks  away  from  the  past,  while  the  Judaizing 
heresies  tenaciously  and  stubbornly  cling  to  it  as  permanently 
binding.  It  exaggerates  the  Pauline  view  of  the  distinction  of 
Christianity  from  Judaism,  sunders  Christianity  from  its  his- 
torical basis,  resolves  the  real  humanity  of  the  Saviour  into  a 
Doketistic  illusion,  and  perverts  the  freedom  of  the  gospel  into 
antinomian  licentiousness.  The  author,  or  first  representative 
of  this  baptized  heathenism,  according  to  the  uniform  testimony 
of  Christian  antiquity,  is  Simon  Magus,  who  unquestionably 
adulterated  Christianity  with  pagan  ideas  and  practices,  and 
gave  himself  out,  in  pantheistic  style,  for  an  emanation  of  God.1 
Plain  traces  of  this  error  appear  in  the  later  epistles  of  Paul  (to 
the  Colossians,  to  Timothy,  and  to  Titus),  the  second  epistle  of 
Peter,  the  first  two  epistles  of  John,  the  epistle  of  Jude,  and 
the  messages  of  the  Apocalypse  to  the  seven  churches. 

This  heresy,  in  the  second  century,  spread  over  the  whole 
church,  east  and  west,  in  the  various  schools  of  Gnosticism. 

3.  As  attempts  had  already  been  made,  before  Christ,  by 
Philo,  by  the  Therapeutse  and  the  Essenes,  etc.,  to  blend  the 
Jewish  religion  with  heathen  philosophy,  especially  that  of 
Pythagoras  and  Plato,  so  now,  under  the  Christian  name,  there 

1 Acts  8 : 10  : y Avyafus  tov  &cov  rj  KaXovfxivri 


§ 73.  PERVERSIONS  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  TEACHING.  567 

appeared  confused  combinations  of  these  opposite  systems,  form- 
ing either  a Paganizing  Judaism,  i.e .,  Gnostic  Ebionism,  or  a 
Judaizing  Paganism,  i.e.,  Ebionistic  Gnosticism,  according  as 
the  Jewish  or  the  heathen  element  prevailed.  This  Syncretis- 
tic  heresy  was  the  caricature  of  John’s  theology,  which  truly 
reconciled  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christianity  in  the  highest  con- 
ception of  the  person  and  work  of  Christ.  The  errors  com- 
bated in  the  later  books  of  the  New  Testament  are  almost  all 
more  or  less  of  this  mixed  sort,  and  it  is  often  doubtful  whether 
they  come  from  Judaism  or  from  heathenism.  They  were  usually 
shrouded  in  a shadowy  mysticism  and  surrounded  by  the  halo  of 
a self-made  ascetic  holiness,  but  sometimes  degenerated  into  the 
opposite  extreme  of  antinomian  licentiousness. 

Whatever  their  differences,  however,  all  these  three  funda- 
mental heresies  amount  at  last  to  a more  or  less  distinct  denial 
of  the  central  truth  of  the  gospel — the  incarnation  of  the  Son 
of  God  for  the  salvation  of  the  world.  They  make  Christ  either 
a mere  man,  or  a mere  superhuman  phantom ; they  allow,  at 
all  events,  no  real  and  abiding  union  of  the  divine  and  human 
in  the  person  of  the  Redeemer.  This  is  just  what  John  gives  as 
the  mark  of  antichrist,  which  existed  even  in  his  day  in  various 
forms.1  It  plainly  undermines  the  foundation  of  the  church. 
For  if  Christ  be  not  God-man,  neither  is  he  mediator  between 
God  and  men  ; Christianity  sinks  back  into  heathenism  or  Juda- 
ism. All  turns  at  last  on  the  answer  to  that  fundamental  ques- 
tion : “ What  think  ye  of  Christ  ? ” The  true  solution  of  this 
question  is  the  radical  refutation  of  every  error. 

Notes. 

“ It  has  often  been  remarked  that  truth  and  error  keep  pace  with  each 
other.  Error  is  the  shadow  cast  by  truth,  truth  the  bright  side  brought 
out  by  error.  Such  is  the  relation  between  the  heresies  and  the  apos- 
tolical teaching  of  the  first  century.  The  Gospels  indeed,  as  in  other 
respects,  so  in  this,  rise  almost  entirely  above  the  circumstances  of  the 
time,  but  the  Epistles  are,  humanly  speaking,  the  result  of  the  very 


1 1 John  2 : 23  ; 4 : 1-3. 


568 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


conflict  between  the  good  and  the  evil  elements  which  existed  togethei 
in  the  bosom  of  the  early  Christian  society.  As  they  exhibit  the  princi- 
ples afterward  to  be  unfolded  into  all  truth  and  goodness,  so  the  here- 
sies which  they  attack  exhibit  the  principles  which  were  afterward  to 
grow  up  into  all  the  various  forms  of  error,  falsehood  and  wickedness. 
The  energy,  the  freshness,  nay,  even  the  preternatural  power  which  be- 
longed to  the  one  belonged  also  to  the  other.  Neither  the  truths  in  the 
writings  of  the  Apostles,  nor  the  errors  in  the  opinions  of  their  oppo- 
nents, can  be  said  to  exhibit  the  dogmatical  form  of  any  subsequent  age. 
It  is  a higher  and  more  universal  good  which  is  aimed  at  in  the  former ; 
it  is  a deeper  and  more  universal  principle  of  evil  which  is  attacked  in 
the  latter.  Christ  Himself,  and  no  subordinate  truths  or  speculations 
concerning  Him,  is  reflected  in  the  one ; Antichrist,  and  not  any  of  the 
particular  outward  manifestations  of  error  which  have  since  appeared, 
was  justly  regarded  by  the  Apostles  as  foreshadowed  in  the  other.” 
— Dean  Stanley  (Apostolic  Age , p.  182). 

Literature. — The  heresies  of  the  Apostolic  Age  have  been  thoroughly 
investigated  by  Neander  and  Baur  in  connection  with  the  history  of 
Ebionism  and  Gnosticism  (see  next  vol.),  and  separately  in  the  introduc- 
tions to  critical  commentaries  on  the  Colossians  and  Pastoral  Epistles ; 
also  by  Thiersch,  Lipsius,  Hilgenfeld.  Among  English  writers  we  men- 
tion Burton  : Inquiry  into  the  Heresies  of  the  Apostolic  Age , in  eight  Ser- 
mons (Bampton  Lectures).  Oxford,  1829.  Dean  Stanley  : Sermons  and 
Essays  on  the  Apostolic  Age , pp.  182-233,  3d  ed.  Oxford,  1874.  Bishop 
Lightfoot  : Com.  on  St.  Paul's  Ep.  to  the  Colossians  and  to  Philemon , pp. 
73-113  (on  the  Colossian  heresy  and  its  connection  with  Essenism). 
London,  1875.  Comp,  also  Hilgenfeld:  Die  Ketzergeschichte  des  Ur- 
christenthums.  Leipzig,  1884  (642  pages). 


§ 74.  L1TEKATU RE. 


569 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

§ 74.  Literature. 

Comp,  the  Lit.  on  the  Life  of  Christ,  § 14,  and  on  the  Apostolic  Age. 

§20. 

I.  The  Critical  Editions  of  the  Greek  Testament  by  Lachmann  (1842-50, 

2 vols.)  ; Tischendorf  (ed.  octava  critica  major,  1869-72,  2 vols., 
with  Prolegomena  by  C.  R.  Gregory,  Part  I.,  Leipz.,  1884)  ; Tre- 
gelles  (1857-79) ; Westcott  and  Hort  (1881,  with  a vol.  of  In- 
trod.  and  Appendix.  Cambridge  and  New  York,  revised  ed.  1888). 

Lachmann  laid  the  foundation  ; Tischendorf  and  Tregelles  greatly  en- 
larged and  carefully  sifted  the  critical  apparatus  ; Westcott  and 
Hort  restored  the  cleanest  text  from  the  oldest  attainable  sources  ; 
all  substantially  agree  in  principle  and  result,  and  give  us  the  an- 
cient uncial  instead  of  the  medimval  cursive  text. 

Two  bilingual  editions  also  deservo  special  mention  in  connection  with 
the  recent  revision  of  Luther’s  and  King  James’s  versions.  Oskar 
von  Gebhardt  : Novum  Testamentum  Greece  et  Germanice , Lips., 
1881,  gives  the  last  text  of  Tischendorf  (with  the  readings  of  Tre- 
gelles, and  Westcott  and  Hort  below)  and  the  revised  translation  of 
Luther.  His  Greek  text  is  also  separately  issued  with  an  “ Adno- 
tatio  critica,”  not  contained  in  the  diglott  edition.  The  Greek- 
English  New  Testament,  containing  Westcott  and  Hort's  Greek  Text  and 
the  Revised  English  Version  on  opposite  pages , with  introduction  by 
Schaff.  New  York  (Harper  & Brothers),  1882,  revised  ed.  1888. 

II.  The  historico-critical  Introductions,  or  literary  Histories  of  the 
New  Testament  by  Hug,  De  Wette,  Credner,  Guericke,  Horne, 
Davidson,  Tregelles,  Grau,  Hilgenfeld,  Aberle  (R.  Cath.),  Bleek 
(4th  ed.  by  Mangold,  1886),  Reuss  (6th  ed.  1887),  Holtzmann  (2d 
ed.  1886),  Weiss  (1886),  Salmon  (3d  ed.  1888). 

III.  Thiersch  : Herstellung  des  historischen  Standpunktes  fur  die  Kritik 
der  neutestamentl.  Schriften.  Erlangen,  1845.  (Against  Baur  and 
the  Tubingen  School.) — Edward  C.  Mitchell:  Critical  Handbook  to 
the  New  Test,  (on  Authenticity,  Canon,  etc.).  Lond.  and  Andover, 
1880  ; French  translation,  Paris,  1882. — J.  P.  Lange  : Grundriss  der 
Bibelkunde.  Heidelberg,  1881. — Philip  Schaff  : Companion  to  the 
Greek  Testament  and  the  English  Version.  N.  Y.  and  Lond.,  1883, 
3d  ed.  revised  1888. — G.  D.  Ladd:  The  Doctrine  of  Sacred  Script- 
ure, N.  York,  1883,  2 vols.  The  same,  abridged,  1888. 


570 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


IV.  The  works  quoted  below  on  the  Gospels  and  Epistles. 

V.  On  the  Canon  of  the  New  Test.,  the  works  of  Kirchhofer  ( Quellen* 
sammlung,  etc.  Zurich,  1844,  Engl,  transl.  enlarged  by  Chabteris  : 
Canonicity,  etc.  Edinb.,  1881) ; Credneb  ( Zur  Gesch.  des  Kanon. 
Halle,  1847 ; Geschichte  des  Neutest.  Kanon , herausg.  von  Volkmar . 
Berlin,  1860);  Gaussen  (Engl,  transl.,  London,  1862;  abridged 
transl.  by  Kirk , Boston,  1862) ; Tregelles  ( Canon  Muratorianus. 
Oxford,  1867) ; Sam.  Davidson  (Lond.,  1878,  3d  ed.,  1880) ; West- 
cott  (Cambridge  and  London,  1855 ; 6th  ed.,  1889)  ; Reuss  {Histoire 
du  canon  des  S.  Ecritures.  Strasb.,  2d  ed.,  1864) ; Ad.  Harnack 
( Das  mnratorische  Fragment  und  die  Entstehung  einer  Sammlung 
apost.-katholischer  Schriften,  in  Brieger’s  “Zeitschrift  f.  Kirchenge- 
schichte,”  1879,  III.,  358  sqq. ; comp.  595  sqq.) ; F.  Overbeck  {Zur 
Geschichte  des  Kanons.  Chemnitz,  1880)  ; Revtlle  (French,  1881)  ; 
Theod.  Zahn  ( Forschungen  zur  Geschichte  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons , 
Part  I.-III.,  1881-84;  and  Geschichte  des  Kanons  d.  AT.  T.,  Leipz ., 
1888  sqq.,  3 vols).  Comp.  Harnack  : Das  N.  T.  um  das  Jahr.  200, 
Freiburg,  1889  (against  Zahn),  and  Zahn’s  reply,  Leipz.,  1889. 

§ 75.  Rise  of  the  Apostolic  Literature. 

Christ  is  the  book  of  life  to  be  read  by  all.  His  religion  is 
not  an  outward  letter  of  command,  like  the  law  of  Moses,  but 
free,  quickening  spirit ; not  a literary  production,  but  a moral 
creation ; not  a new  system  of  theology  or  philosophy  for  the 
learned,  but  a communication  of  the  divine  life  for  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  whole  world.  Christ  is  the  personal  Word  of  God, 
the  eternal  Logos,  who  became  flesh  and  dwelt  upon  earth  as 
the  true  Shekinah,  in  the  veiled  glory  of  the  only  begotten  from 
the  Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth.  He  spoke;  and  all  the 
words  of  his  mouth  were,  and  still  are,  spirit  and  life.  The 
human  heart  craves  not  a learned,  letter-writing,  literary  Christ, 
but  a wonder-working,  cross-bearing,  atoning  Redeemer,  risen, 
enthroned  in  heaven,  and  ruling  the  world ; furnishing,  at  the 
same  time,  to  men  and  angels  an  unending  theme  for  medita- 
tion, discourse,  and  praise. 

So,  too,  the  Lord  chose  none  of  his  apostles,  with  the  single 
exception  of  Paul,  from  the  ranks  of  the  learned ; he  did  not 
train  them  to  literary  authorship,  nor  give  them,  throughout  his 
earthly  life,  a single  express  command  to  labor  in  that  way. 


§ 75.  RISE  OF  TIIE  APOSTOLIC  LITERATURE.  571 


Plain  fishermen  of  Galilee,  unskilled  in  the  wisdom  of  this 
world,  but  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  truth  and  the  powers 
of  the  world  to  come,  were  commissioned  to  preach  the  glad 
tidings  of  ^salvation  to  all  nations  in  the  strength  and  in  the 
name  of  their  glorified  Master,  who  sits  on  the  right  hand  of 
God  the  Father  Almighty,  and  has  promised  to  be  with  them 
to  the  end  of  time. 

The  gospel,  accordingly,  was  first  propagated  and  the  church 
founded  by  the  personal  oral  teaching  and  exhortation,  the 
“ preaching,”  “ testimony,”  “ word,”  “ tradition,”  of  the  apostles 
and  their  disciples ; as,  in  fact,  to  this  day  the  living  word  is  the 
indispensable  or,  at  least,  the  principal  means  of  promoting  the 
Christian  religion.  Nearly  all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
were  written  between  the  years  50  and  70,  at  least  twenty  years 
after  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  the  founding  of  the  church ; 
and  the  Gospel  and  Epistles  of  John  still  later. 

As  the  apostles’  field  of  labor  expanded,  it  became  too  large 
for  their  personal  attention,  and  required  epistolary  correspond- 
ence. The  vital  interests  of  Christianity  and  the  wants  of 
coming  generations  demanded  a faithful  record  of  the  life  and 
teaching  of  Christ  by  perfectly  reliable  witnesses.  For  oral 
tradition,  among  fallible  men,  is  liable  to  so  many  accidental 
changes,  that  it  loses  in  certainty  and  credibility  as  its  distance 
from  the  fountain-head  increases,  till  at  last  it  can  no  longer  be 
clearly  distinguished  from  the  additions  and  corruptions  col- 
lected upon  it.  There  was  great  danger,  too,  of  a wilful  distor- 
tion of  the  history  and  doctrine  of  Christianity  by  Judaizing 
and  paganizing  errorists,  who  had  already  raised  their  heads 
during  the  lifetime  of  the  apostles.  An  authentic  written  rec- 
ord of  the  words  and  acts  of  Jesus  and  his  disciples  was  there- 
fore absolutely  indispensable,  not  indeed  to  originate  the  church, 
but  to  keep  it  from  corruption  and  to  furnish  it  with  a pure 
standard  of  faith  and  discipline. 

Hence  seven  and  twenty  books  by  apostles  and  apostolic  men, 
written  under  the  special  influence  and  direction  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  These  afford  us  a truthful  picture  of  the  history,  the 


572 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


faith,  and  the  practice  of  primitive  Christianity,  “ for  teaching, 
for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness.”  1 

The  collection  of  these  writings  into  a canon,  in  distinction 
both  from  apocryphal  or  pseudo-apostolic  works,  and  from 
orthodox  yet  merely  human  productions,  was  the  work  of  the 
early  church ; and  in  performing  it  she  was  likewise  guided  by 
the  Spirit  of  God  and  by  a sound  sense  of  truth.  It  was  not 
finished  to  the  satisfaction  of  all  till  the  end  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, down  to  which  time  seven  New  Testament  books  (the 
u Antilegomena  ” of  Eusebius),  the  second  Epistle  of  Peter,  the 
second  and  third  Epistles  of  John,  the  anonymous  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  the  Epistles  of  James  and  Jude,  and  in  a certain 
sense  also  the  Apocalypse  of  John,  were  by  some  considered  of 
doubtful  authorship  or  value.  But  the  collection  was  no 
doubt  begun,  on  the  model  of  the  Old  Testament  canon,  in  the 
first  century ; 2 and  the  principal  books,  the  Gospels,  the  Acts, 
the  thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul,  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter,  and  the 
first  of  John,  in  a body,  were  in  general  use  after  the  middle  of 
the  second  century,  and  were  read,  either  entire  or  by  sections, 
in  public  worship,  after  the  manner  of  the  Jewish  synagogue, 
for  the  edification  of  the  people. 

The  external  testimony  of  tradition  alone  cannot  (for  the 
Protestant  Christian)  decide  the  apostolic  origin  and  canonical 
character  of  a book ; it  must  be  confirmed  by  the  internal 
testimony  of  the  book  itself.  But  this  is  not  wanting,  and  the 
general  voice  of  Christendom  for  these  eighteen  hundred  years 
has  recognized  in  the  little  volume,  which  we  call  the  New 
Testament,  a book  altogether  unique  in  spiritual  power  and 
influence  over  the  mind  and  heart  of  man,  and  of  more  in- 
terest and  value  than  all  the  ancient  and  modern  classics  com- 
bined. If  ever  God  spoke  and  still  speaks  to  man,  it  is  in  this 
book. 

1 2 Tim.  3 : 16.  It  applies  to  “every  Scripture  inspired  of  God,”  more  im- 
mediately to  tlie  Old  Test.,  but  a fortiori  still  more  to  the  New. 

2 Comp.  2 Pet.  3 : 16,  where  a collection  of  Paul’s  Epistles  is  implied. 


§ 76.  CHARACTER  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  573 


§ 76.  Character  of  the  New  Testament. 

In  these  inspired  writings  we  have,  not  indeed  an  equivalent, 
but  a reliable  substitute  for  the  personal  presence  and  the  oral 
instruction  of  Christ  and  his  apostles.  The  written  word  differs 
from  the  spoken  only  in  form ; the  substance  is  the  same,  and 
has  therefore  the  same  authority  and  quickening  power  for  us 
as  it  had  for  those  who  heard  it  first.  Although  these  books 
were  called  forth  apparently  by  special  and  accidental  occasions, 
and  were  primarily  addressed  to  particular  circles  of  readers 
and  adapted  to  peculiar  circumstances,  yet,  as  they  present  the 
eternal  and  unchangeable  truth  in  living  forms,  they  suit  all 
circumstances  and  conditions.  Tracts  for  the  times,  they  are 
tracts  for  all  times ; intended  for  Jews  and  Greeks  of  the  first 
century,  they  have  the  same  interest  for  Englishmen  and 
Americans  of  the  nineteenth  century.  They  are  to  this  day 
not  only  the  sole  reliable  and  pure  fountain  of  primitive  Chris- 
tianity, but  also  the  infallible  rule  of  Christian  faith  and  prac- 
tice. From  this  fountain  the  church  has  drunk  the  water  of 
life  for  more  than  fifty  generations,  and  will  drink  it  till  the 
end  of  time.  In  this  rule  she  has  a perpetual  corrective  for  all 
her  faults,  and  a protective  against  all  error.  Theological  sys- 
tems come  and  go,  and  draw  from  that  treasury  their  larger  or 
smaller  additions  to  the  stock  of  our  knowledge  of  the  truth ; 
but  they  can  never  equal  that  infallible  word  of  God,  which 
abideth  forever. 

“ Our  little  systems  have  their  day, 

They  have  their  day  and  cease  to  be  : 

They  are  but  broken  lights  of  Thee, 

And  Thou,  O God,  art  more  than  they.** 

The  New  Testament  evinces  its  universal  design  in  its  very 
style,  which  alone  distinguishes  it  from  all  the  literary  produc- 
tions of  earlier  and  later  times.  It  has  a Greek  body,  a Hebrew 
soul,  and  a Christian  spirit  which  rules  both.  The  language  is 
the  Hellenistic  idiom  ; that  is,  the  Macedonian  Greek  as  spoken 
by  the  Jews  of  the  dispersion  in  the  time  of  Christ ; uniting,  in 


574 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


a regenerated  Christian  form,  the  two  great  antagonistic  nation* 
alities  and  religions  of  the  ancient  world.  The  most  beautiful 
language  of  heathendom  and  the  venerable  language  of  the 
Hebrews  are  here  combined,  and  baptized  with  the  spirit  of 
Christianity,  and  made  the  picture  of  silver  for  the  golden 
apple  of  the  eternal  truth  of  the  gospel.  The  style  of  the  Bible 
in  general  is  singularly  adapted  to  men  of  every  class  and  grade 
of  culture,  affording  the  child  the  simple  nourishment  for  its 
religious  wants,  and  the  profoundest  thinker  inexhaustible  mat- 
ter of  study.  The  Bible  is  not  simply  a popular  book,  but  a 
book  of  all  nations,  and  for  all  societies,  classes,  and  conditions 
of  men.  It  is  more  than  a book,  it  is  an  institution  which  rules 
the  Christian  world. 

The  ~New  Testament  presents,  in  its  way,  the  same  union  of 
the  divine  and  human  as  the  person  of  Christ.  In  this  sense 
also  “the  word  became  flesh,  and  dwells  among  us.”  As 
Christ  was  like  us  in  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  sin  only  excepted, 
so  the  Scriptures,  which  “ bear  witness  of  him,”  are  thoroughly 
human  (though  without  doctrinal  and  ethical  error)  in  con- 
tents and  form,  in  the  mode  of  their  rise,  their  compilation, 
their  preservation,  and  transmission ; yet  at  the  same  time 
they  are  thoroughly  divine  both  in  thoughts  and  words,  in 
origin,  vitality,  energy,  and  effect,  and  beneath  the  human 
servant-form  of  the  letter,  the  eye  of  faith  discerns  the  glory 
of  “the  only  begotten  from  the  Father,  full  of  grace  and 
truth.” 

The  apostolic  writings  are  of  three  kinds : historical,  didactic, 
and  prophetic.  To  the  first  class  belong  the  Gospels  and  Acts ; 
to  the  second,  the  Epistles ; to  the  third,  the  Revelation.  They 
are  related  to  each  other  as  regeneration,  sanctification,  and  glori- 
fication ; as  foundation,  house,  and  dome.  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
beginning,  the  middle,  and  the  end  of  all.  In  the  Gospels  he 
walks  in  human  form  upon  the  earth,  and  accomplishes  the 
work  of  redemption.  In  the  Acts  and  Epistles  he  founds  the 
church,  and  fills  and  guides  it  by  his  Spirit.  And  at  last,  in  the 
visions  of  the  Apocalypse,  he  comes  again  in  glory,  and  with 


§ 77.  LITERATURE  ON  THE  GOSPELS. 


675 


his  bride,  the  church  of  the  saints,  reigns  forever  upon  the  new 
earth  in  the  city  of  God. 

This  order  corresponds  with  the  natural  progress  of  the  Chris- 
tian revelation  and  was  universally  adopted  by  the  church,  with 
the  exception  of  a difference  in  the  arrangement  of  the  Epistles. 
The  New  Testament  was  not  given  in  the  form  of  a finished 
volume,  but  the  several  books  grew  together  by  recognition  and 
use  according  to  the  law  of  internal  fitness.  Most  of  the  ancient 
Manuscripts,  Versions,  and  Catalogues  arrange  the  books  in  the 
following  order : Gospels,  Acts,  Catholic  Epistles,  Pauline  Epis- 
tles, Apocalypse.1  Some  put  the  Pauline  Epistles  before  the 
Catholic  Epistles.2  Our  English  Bible  follows  the  order  of  the 
Latin  Vulgate.3 


§ 77.  Literature  on  the  Gospels. 

I.  Harmonies  op  the  GosPEiiS. 

They  begin  -with  Tatian’s  Diatessaron,  a.d.  170.  See  lists  of  older  works 
in  Fabricius,  Bibl.  Gr.,  HI.  212  ; Hase,  Leben  Jesu,  pp.  22-31  (fifth 
ed.) ; Robinson,  Harmony,  pp.  v.  and  vi.;  Darling,  Cyclopaedia 
Bibliog.  (I.  Subjects,  cols.  761-767) ; and  McClintock  and  Strong 
{Cyclop.,  IV.  81).  We  give  the  chief  works  from  Griesbach  to 
Rushbrooke. 

Griesbach  { Synopsis , Halle,  1774,  etc.,  1822) ; Newcome  (Dublin,  1778 
and  often  ; also  Andover,  1834) ; Jos.  Priestley  (in  Greek,  London, 
1778;  in  English,  1780);  Jos.  White  ( Diatessaron , Oxford,  1799, 
1803) ; De  Wette  and  Lucke  (1818,  1842) ; Rodiger  (1829,  1839) ; 
Greswell  {Harmonia  Evangelica , 1830,  5th  ed.  Oxford,  1856 ; Disser- 
tations upon  an  Harmony , etc.,  2d  ed.,  Oxford,  1837, 4 vols.) ; Macbride 
{Diatessaron,  Oxford,  1837)  ; Wieseler  {Chronolog.  Synopse,  Hamb., 
1843) ; Kbafft  (d.  1845 ; Chronologie  u.  Harmonie  der  4 Evang. 

1 This  order  is  restored  in  the  critical  editions  of  Lachmann,  Tischendorf, 
Tregelles,  Westcott  and  Hort 

2 The  Codex  Sinaiticus  puts  the  Pauline  Epistles  before  the  Acts,  and  the 
Hebrews  between  2 Thessalonians  and  1 Timothy. 

3 This  order  agrees  with  the  Muratorian  Fragment,  the  catalogue  of  Euse- 
bius (H.  E.,  III.  25),  that  of  the  Synod  of  Carthage  (a.d.  397),  and  the  Codex 
Basiliensis.  Luther  took  the  liberty  of  disconnecting  the  Hebrews  (which  he 
ascribed  to  Apollos)  from  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and  putting  it  and  the  Epistle 
of  James  (which  he  disliked)  at  the  end  of  the  Catholic  Epistles  (except  Jude). 


576 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Erlangen,  1848 ; edit,  by  Burger) ; Tischendorf  (Synopsis  Evang . 
Lips.,  1851,  1854 ; 4th  ed.,  1878) ; Bud.  Anger  (Lips.,  1852) ; 
Stroud  (comprising  a Synopsis  and  a Diatessaron,  London,  1853) ; 
E.  Robinson  (A  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels  in  Greek , according  to 
the  text  of  Hahn , Boston,  1845,  1851 ; revised  ed.,  1862  ; in  English, 
1846) ; James  Strong  (in  English,  New  York,  1852  ; in  Greek,  1854) ; 
R.  Mimpriss  (London,  1855) ; Douglas  (1859) ; Sevin  (Wiesbaden, 
1866) ; Fr.  Gardiner  [A  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels  in  Greek , 
according  to  the  text  of  Tischendorf  with  a Collation  of  the  Textus  Re- 
ceptus , etc.  Andover,  1876;  also  his  Diatessaron , The  Life  of  our 
Lord  in  the  Words  of  the  Gospels , Andover,  1871) ; J.  R.  Gilmore 
and  Lyman  Abbott  ( The  Gospel  History:  being  a Complete  Chrono- 
logical Narrative  of  the  Life  of  our  Lord , New  York,  1881) ; W.  G. 
Rushbrooke  ( Synopticon  : an  Exposition  of  the  Common  Matter  in  the 
Synoptic  Gospels , Cambridge,  1880-81,  2 parts  ; the  Greek  text  of 
Tischendorf,  corrected  from  Westcott  and  Hort).  The  last  work  is 
unique  and  superbly  printed.  It  marks  the  differences  of  the  narra- 
tives by  different  types  and  color,  namely,  the  matter  common  to  all 
Evangelists  in  red  type,  the  matter  common  to  each  pair  in  black 
spaced  type  or  capitals,  the  matter  peculiar  to  each  in  ordinary 
black  type.  It  furnishes  the  best  basis  for  a detailed  comparison 
and  critical  analysis. 

II.  Critical  Discussions. 

Nathaniel  Lardner  (1684-1768,  a dissenting  minister  of  great  learning) : 
The  Credibility  of  the  Gospel  History.  First  published  in  17  vols. 
8vo,  London,  1727-1757,  and  in  his  collected  Works , ed.  by  A. 
Kippis,  London,  1788  (in  11  vols.),  vols.  I.-Y.  Unsurpassed  for 
honest  and  solid  learning,  and  still  valuable. 

J.  G.  Eichhorn  (d.  1827)  : Allgem.  Bibliothek  der  bibl.  Liter.,  vol.  Y. 
(1794),  pp.  759  sqq.  Einleitung  in  das  N.  Testament .,  1804,  vol.  I.,  2d 
ed.,  1820.  Here  he  brought  out  his  new  idea  of  an  Urevangelium. 

Herbert  Marsh  (Bishop  of  Peterborough,  d.  1839)  : An  Illustration  of 
the  Hypothesis  proposed  in  the  Dissertation  on  the  Origin  and  Composi- 
tion of  our  Three  First  Canonical  Gospels.  Cambridge,  1803.  Also 
his  translation  of  J.  D.  Michaelis  : Introduction  to  the  New  Test.,  with 
a Dissertation  on  the  Origin  and  Composition  of  the  Three  First  Gos- 
pels. London,  1802.  A modification  of  Eichhorn’s  hypothesis. 

Fr.  Schlelermacher  ! Kritischer  Versuch  liber  die  Schriften  des  Lucas. 
Berlin,  1817  (Werke  I.  2,  pp.  1-220);  trans.  by  Thirl  wall,  Lond., 
1825.  Comp,  his  Einleitung  in  das  N.  Testament,  (posthumous). 

J.  C.  L.  Gieseler  : Historisch-kritischer  Versuch  liber  die  Entstehung  und 
die  friihesten  Schicksale  der  scliriftlichen  Evangelien.  Leipz.,  1818. 

Andrews  Norton  (a  conservative  Unitarian,  died  at  Cambridge,  1853) : 


§ 77.  LITERATURE  ON  TIIE  GOSPELS. 


577 


The  Evidences  of  the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels.  Boston,  1837  ; 2d 
ed.,  Cambridge,  Mass.,  1846-1848,  3 vols.  Abridged  ed.  in  1 vol., 
Boston  (Am.  Unitar.  Assoc.),  1867  and  1875.  By  the  same : Inter- 
nal Evidences  of  the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels  (posthumous).  Boston, 
1855.  With  special  reference  to  Strauss. 

Fr.  Bleek  (d.  1859)  : Deitrdge  zur  Evangelien- Kritik.  Berlin,  1846. 

F.  Chr.  Baur  (d.  1860)  : Kritische  Untersuchungen  uber  die  Jcanonischen 
Evangelien.  1847.  Comp,  the  first  volume  of  his  Church  History 
(Germ,  ed.,  pp.  22  sqq.,  148  sqq.). 

Isaac  da  Costa  : The  Four  Witnesses  : being  a Harmony  of  the  Gospels  on 
a New  Principle.  Transl.  (from  the  Dutch)  by  David  Scott,  1851 ; 
New  York  ed.,  1855.  Against  Strauss. 

Ad.  Hilgenfeld  (Tubingen  School)  : Die  Evangelien  nach  ihrer  Entste- 
hung  und  geschichtl.  Bedeutung . Leipz.,  1854.  His  Einleitung , 1875. 

Canon  Westcott  : Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels.  London  and 
Boston,  1860  ; 7th  ed.,  London,  1888.  Very  useful. 

Const.  Tischendorf  (d.  1874)  : Warm  wurden  unsere  Evangelien  verfasst  f 
Leipz.,  4th  ed.,  1866  (Engl,  transl.  by  W.  L.  Gage , Boston,  1868). 

H.  Jul.  Holtzmann  : Die  synoptischen  Evangelien , ihr  Ursprung  und 
geschichtl.  Charakter.  Leipz.,  1863.  See  also  his  art.  Evangelien  in 
Schenkel’s  “ Bibel-Lex.,”  II.  207,  and  two  articles  on  the  Synoptic 
Question  in  the  “ Jahrbiicher  fur  Protest.  Tlieol.,”  1878,  pp.  145  sqq. 
and  533  sqq.;  but  especially  his  Einleitung  in  das  N.  T.,  2d  ed.,  1886. 

C.  Weizsacker  (successor  of  Dr.  Baur,  but  less  radical) : Untersuchungen 
uber  die  evang.  Gesch.,  ihre  Quellen , etc.  Gotha,  1864. 

Gustave  d’Eichthal  : Les  fivangiles.  Paris,  1863.  2 vols. 

L.  A.  Sabatier  : Essai  sur  les  sources  de  la  vie  de  Jesus.  Paris,  1866. 

Andrew  Jukes  : The  Characteristic  Differences  of  the  Four  Gospels.  Lon- 
don, 1867. 

Edward  A.  Thomson:  The  Four  Evangelists  ; 'with  the  Distinctive  Charac- 
teristics of  their  Gospels.  Edinburgh,  1868. 

C.  A.  Row:  The  Historical  Character  of  the  Gospels  Tested  by  an  Exami- 
nation of  their  Contents.  1865-67.  The  Jesus  of  the  Evangelists.  Lon- 
don, 1868. 

Karl  Wieseler  : Beitrage  zur  richtigen  Wiirdigung  der  Evangelien  und 
der  evangel.  Geschichte.  Gotha,  1869. 

Supernatural  Religion  (anonymous).  London,  1873,  7th  ed.,  1879,  vol.  I., 
Part  II.,  pp.  212  sqq.,  and  vol.  II.  Comp,  the  careful  review  and 
refutation  of  this  work  by  Bishop  Lightfoot  in  a series  of  articles 
in  the  “ Contemporary  Review,”  1875,  sqq. 

F.  Godet  : The  Origin  of  the  Four  Gospels.  In  his  “ Studies  on  the  New 
Test.,”  1873.  Engl,  transl.  by  W.  H.  Lyttelton.  London,  1876. 
See  also  his  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke , Introd.  and  Ap- 
pendix, Eng.  trans.  from  2d  French  ed.  Edinb.,  1875. 

W.  Sanday  : The  Gospels  in  the  Second  Century.  London,  1876. 


578 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Bernhard  Weiss  (Professor  in  Berlin)  : Das  Marcusevangelium  und  seine 
synoptischen  Parallelen.  Berlin,  1872.  Das  Matthdusevangelium  und 
seine  Lucas- Parallelen  erkldrt.  Halle,  1876.  Two  very  thorough  criti- 
cal works.  Comp,  also  his  reply  to  Holtzmann  in  the  “ Jahrbiicher 
fur  Protest.  Theologie,”  1878  ; and  his  Einleitung  in's  N.  T .,  1886. 

D.  S.  Gregory  : Why  Four  Gospels  ? or,  the  Gospels  for  all  the  World . 

New  York,  1877. 

E.  Renan  : Les  evangiles  et  la  seconde  generation  Chretienne.  Paris,  1877. 

Geo.  P.  Fisher  (Professor  in  New  Haven)  : The  Beginnings  of  Christie 

anity.  New  York,  1877.  Chs.  VIII.-XII.  Also  several  articles  on 
the  Gospels  in  the  “Princeton  Review  ” for  1881. 

Wm.  Thomson  (Archbishop  of  York)  : The  Gospels.  General  Introduc- 
tion to  Speaker’s  “ Com.  on  the  New  Test.,”  vol.  I.,  pp.  xiii.-lxxv. 
London  and  New  York,  1878. 

Edwin  A.  Abbott  (Head  Master,  City  of  London  School) : Gospels,  in 
the  ninth  edition  of  the  “Encyclopaedia  Britannica,”  vol.  X.,  pp. 
789-843.  Edinburgh  and  New  York,  1879. 

Fred.  Huidekoper  (Unitar.  Theol.  Seminary,  Meadville,  Pa.)  : Indirect 
Testimony  of  History  to  the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels.  New  York,  2d 
ed.,  1879. 

John  Kennedy  (D.D.) : The  Four  Gospels:  their  Age  and  Authoi'ship. 
Traced  from  the  Fourth  Century  into  the  First.  London ; Am.  ed., 
with  an  introduction  by  Edwin  W.  Rice.  Philadelphia,  1880  (Am. 
Sunday  School  Union). 

J.  H.  Scholten  : Das  Paulinische  Evangelium.  Transl.  from  the  Dutch 
by  E.  R.  Redepenning.  Elberfeld,  1881. 

C.  Holsten  : Die  drei  ursprunglichen , noch  ungeschriebenen  Evang  elien. 
Leipzig,  1883  (79  pages).  A modification  of  Baur’s  tendency-hypoth- 
esis. Holsten  assumes  three  forms  of  the  original  oral  Gospel — the 
Pauline,  the  Petrine,  and  the  Judaistic. 

Norton,  Tischendorf,  Wieseler,  Ebrard,  Da  Costa,  Westcott,  Lightfoot, 
Sanday,  Kennedy,  Thomson,  Godet,  Ezra  Abbot,  and  Fisher  are  con- 
servative and  constructive,  yet  critical ; Baur,  Hilgenfeld,  Holtzmann, 
Keim,  Renan,  Scholten,  Davidson,  and  the  author  of  “ Supernatural 
Religion  ” are  radical,  but  stimulating  and  negatively  helpful,  espe- 
cially Baur,  Keim,  and  Renan.  Bleek,  Ewald,  Reuss,  Meyer,  and 
Weiss  occupy  independent  middle  ground,  but  all  defend  the  genu- 
ineness of  John  except  Reuss,  who  hesitates. 

III.  Commentaries. 

1.  Ancient  Works  : Origen  (in  Math.,  Luc.,  etc.,  fragmentary) ; Chrysos- 
tom (Horn,  in  Matth.,  ed.  Fr.  Field,  1839);  Jerome  (in  Matth. ; in 
Luc.) ; Augustin  ( Qucestionum  Evangelioi'um  libri  II.) ; Theophylact 
( Comment . in  4 Evang.,  Gr.  et  Lat.)  ; Euthymius  Zigabenus  (Com.  in  4 
Evang.,  Gr.  et  Lat.) ; Thomas  Aquinas  ( Catena  aurea  in  Evang. ; Eng- 
lish edition  by  Pusey,  Keble,  and  Newman.  Oxford,  1841-45, 4 vols.). 


§ 78.  TIIE  FOUR  GOSPELS. 


579 


2.  Since  the  Reformation:  Calvin  ( Harnionia , and  Ev.  Joa.,  1553; 

Engl,  ed.,  Edinb.,  1846,  3 vols.) ; Maldonatus  (R.  Cath.,  Com.  in 
quatuor  Evang.,  1615) ; Pasquier  Quesnel  (Jansenist ; The  Four  Gos- 
pels, French  and  English,  several  editions) ; John  Lightfoot  ( Hai'ce 
Hebraicce  et  Talmudicai  in  quatuor  Evangelistas , and  Harmonia  qua- 
tuor Evangelistarum  turn  inter  se,  turn  cum  Veter i Testamento,  in  his 
Opera.  London,  1684;  also  Leipz.,  1675;  Rotterdam,  1686 ; Lon- 
don, 1825) ; J.  Macknight  (Harm,  of  the  Four  Gospels , with  Para- 
phrase and  Notes.  London,  1756;  5th  ed.,  1819,  2 vols.)  ; George 
Campbell  (d.  1796 ; The  Four  Gospels,  with  Dissertations  and  Notes. 
Aberdeen,  1814,  4 vols. ; Andover,  1837,  2 vols.). 

3.  In  the  nineteenth  century : Olshausen  (d.  1839 ; 3d  ed.,  1837  sqq. ; 

revised  and  completed  by  Ebrard  and  others ; Engl,  transl.,  Edinb. 
and  New  York) ; De  Wette  (d.  1849  ; Exeget.  Handbuch  zum  N.  T., 
1837 ; 5th  ed.  by  Bruckner  and  others,  1863  sqq.) ; Bleek  (d.  1859 ; 
Synopt.  Erklarung  der  3 ersten  Evang.,  1862,  2 vols.) ; Meyer  (d. 
1874;  6th  ed.,  1876-80,  Matthew  by  Meyer,  Mark,  Luke  and  John 
revised  by  Weiss)  ; Lange  (Am.  ed.  enlarged,  New  York  and  Edinb., 
1864  sqq.,  3 vols.) ; Alford  (d.  1871 ; 6th  ed.,  1868 ; new  ed.,  1877) ; 
Wordsworth  (5th  ed.,  1866) ; Jos.  A.  Alexander  (d.  1859 ; Mark 
and  Matthew,  the  latter  unfinished)  ; McClellan  ( The  Four  Gospels, 
with  the  Chronological  and  Analytical  Harmony.  London,  1875) ; Kf.tt, 
(Matthew,  Mark,  Luke , and  John,  1877-1881) ; Morison  (Matthew  and 
Mark,  the  latter  in  a third  ed.,  1882)  ; Godet  (Luke  and  John,  French 
and  English),  Strack  and  Zockler  (1888).  For  English  readers: 
Speaker’s  Com.,  Ellioott’s  Com.,  Schaff’s  Revision  Com.,  1882,  etc. 
Comp,  a list  of  Com.  on  the  Gospels  in  the  English  transl.  of  Meyer  on 
Matthew  (Edinb.,  1877,  pp.  xxiv.-xliii.). 

§ 78.  The  Four  Gospels . 

General  Character  and  Aim  of  the  Gospels. 

Christianity  is  a cheerful  religion  and  brings  joy  and  peace 
from  heaven  to  earth.  The  New  Testament  opens  with  the 
gospel,  that  is  with  the  authentic  record  of  the  history  of  all 
histories,  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation  through  the  life,  death, 
and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.1  The  four  canonical  Gospels 

1 The  Greek  word  evayyeMov  which  passed  into  the  Latin  evang elium,  and 
through  this  into  modern  languages  (French,  German,  Italian,  etc.),  means 
1st,  reward  for  good  news  to  the  messenger  (in  Homer)  ; 2d,  good  news,  glad 
tidings  ; 3d,  glad  tidings  of  Christ  and  his  salvation  (so  in  the  New  Test.); 
4th,  the  record  of  these  glad  tidings  (so  in  the  headings  of  the  Gospels  and 
in  ecclesiastical  usage).  The  Saxon  “gospel,”  i.e.,  God’s  spell  or  good  spell 
(from  spellian,  to  tell),  is  the  nearest  idiomatic  equivalent  for  cvayye\ iov. 


580 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


are  only  variations  of  the  same  theme,  a fourfold  representation 
of  one  and  the  same  gospel,  animated  by  the  same  spirit.1  They 
are  not  full  biographies,2  but  only  memoirs  or  a selection  of 
characteristic  features  of  Christ’s  life  and  work  as  they  struck 
each  Evangelist  and  best  suited  his  purpose  and  his  class  of 
readers.3  They  are  not  photographs  which  give  only  the  mo- 
mentary image  in  a single  attitude,  but  living  pictures  from 
repeated  sittings,  and  reproduce  the  varied  expressions  and 
aspects  of  Christ’s  person. 

The  style  is  natural,  unadorned,  straightforward,  and  objec- 
tive. Their  artless  and  naive  simplicity  resembles  the  earliest 
historic  records  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  has  its  peculiar 
and  abiding  charm  for  all  classes  of  people  and  all  degrees  of 
culture.  The  authors,  in  noble  modesty  and  self-forgetfulness, 
suppress  their  personal  views  and  feelings,  retire  in  worshipful 
silence  before  their  great  subject,  and  strive  to  set  it  forth  in  all 
its  own  unaided  power. 

The  first  and  fourth  Gospels  were  composed  by  apostles  and 
eye-witnesses,  Matthew  and  John ; the  second  and  third,  under 
the  influence  of  Peter  and  Paul,  and  by  their  disciples  Mark 
and  Luke,  so  as  to  be  indirectly  likewise  of  apostolic  origin  and 
canonical  authority.  Hence  Mark  is  often  called  the  Gospel  of 
Peter,  and  Luke  the  Gospel  of  Paul. 

The  common  practical  aim  of  the  Evangelists  is  to  lead  the 
reader  to  a saving  faith  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  the  promised 
Messiah  and  Redeemer  of  the  world.4 

1 Irenaeus  very  properly  calls  them  rerpa/Ltopcpov  rb  evayytAiov,  eri  Trvcv/nart 

quadri forme  evangelium  quod  uno  spiritu  continetur.  Adv.  Hcer. 

III.  11,  § 8. 

2 This  is  expressly  disclaimed  in  John  20  : 30 ; comp.  21  : 25. 

3 Hence  Justin  Martyr,  in  his  two  “Apologies’*  (written  about  146),  calls 
the  Gospels  “Memoirs”  or  “ Memorabilia”  (’ hirop.vnpovevixara)  of  Christ  or  of 
the  Apostles,  in  imitation  no  doubt  of  the  Memorabilia  of  Socrates  by  Xeno- 
phon. That  Justin  means  no  other  books  but  our  canonical  Gospels  by  these 
“ Memoirs,”  which  he  says  were  read  in  public  worship  on  Sunday,  there  can 
be  no  reasonable  doubt.  See  especially  Dr.  Abbot’s  Authorship  of  the  Fourth 
Oospel,  1880. 

4 John  20  : 30,  31  : ravra  bb  yeypairrat  iva  itKTrcv-qre  Zn  'lrj<rovs  i<rr\v 

Xp»<rr<is,  6 vibs  rod  0eou,  »cal  'iva  Triffrevovres  %Xrlr€  rV  dv6/xari  avrov. 


§ 78.  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS. 


581 


Common  Origin. 

The  Gospels  have  their  common  source  in  the  personal  inter- 
course of  two  of  the  writers  witli  Christ,  and  in  the  oral  tradi- 
tion of  the  apostles  and  other  eye-witnesses.  Plain  fishermen 
of  Galilee  could  not  have  drawn  such  a portrait  of  Jesus  if  he 
had  not  sat  for  it.  It  would  take  more  than  a Jesus  to  invent  a 
Jesus.  They  did  not  create  the  divine  original,  but  they  faith- 
fully preserved  and  reproduced  it. 

The  gospel  story,  being  constantly  repeated  in  public  preach- 
ing and  in  private  circles,  assumed  a fixed,  stereotyped  form ; 
the  more  readily,  on  account  of  the  reverence  of  the  first  dis- 
ciples for  every  word  of  their  divine  Master.  Hence  the  strik- 
ing agreement  of  the  first  three,  or  synoptical  Gospels,  which, 
in  matter  and  form,  are  only  variations  of  the  same  theme. 
Luke  used,  according  to  his  own  statement,  besides  the  oral 
tradition,  written  documents  on  certain  parts  of  the  life  of 
Jesus,  which  doubtless  appeared  early  among  the  first  disciples. 
The  Gospel  of  Mark,  the  confidant  of  Peter,  is  a faithful  copy 
of  the  gospel  preached  and  otherwise  communicated  by  this 
apostle ; with  the  use,  perhaps,  of  Hebrew  records  which  Peter 
may  have  made  from  time  to  time  under  the  fresh  impression 
of  the  events  themselves. 

Individual  Characteristics. 

But  with  all  their  similarity  in  matter  and  style,  each  of  the 
Gospels,  above  all  the  fourth,  has  its  peculiarities,  answering  to 
the  personal  character  of  its  author,  his  special  design,  and  the 
circumstances  of  his  readers.  The  several  evangelists  present 
the  infinite  fulness  of  the  life  and  person  of  Jesus  in  different 
aspects  and  different  relations  to  mankind ; and  they  complete 
one  another.  The  symbolical  poesy  of  the  church  compares 
them  with  the  four  rivers  of  Paradise,  and  with  the  four  cher- 
ubic representatives  of  the  creation,  assigning  the  man  to  Mat- 
thew, the  lion  to  Mark,  the  ox  to  Luke,  and  the  eagle  to  John. 

The  apparent  contradictions  of  these  narratives,  when  closely 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


582 

examined,  sufficiently  solve  themselves,  in  all  essential  pointy 
and  serve  only  to  attest  the  honesty,  impartiality,  and  credibility 
of  the  authors.  At  the  same  time  the  striking  combination  of 
resemblances  and  differences  stimulates  close  observation  and 
minute  comparison,  and  thus  impresses  the  events  of  the  life 
of  Christ  more  vividly  and  deeply  upon  the  mind  and  heart  of 
the  reader  than  a single  narrative  could  do.  The  immense 
labor  of  late  years  in  bringing  out  the  comparative  characteris- 
tics of  the  Gospels  and  in  harmonizing  their  discrepancies  has 
not  been  in  vain,  and  has  left  a stronger  conviction  of  their 
independent  worth  and  mutual  completeness. 

Matthew  wrote  for  Jews,  Mark  for  Romans,  Luke  for  Greeks, 
John  for  advanced  Christians ; but  all  are  suited  for  Christians  in 
every  age  and  nation.1  The  first  Gospel  exhibits  Jesus  of  Raza- 
retli  as  the  Messiah  and  Lawgiver  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
who  challenges  our  obedience ; the  second  Gospel  as  the  mighty 
conqueror  and  worker  of  miracles  who  excites  our  astonishment ; 
the  third  Gospel  as  the  sympathizing  Friend  and  Saviour  of 
men  who  commands  our  confidence ; the  fourth  Gospel  as  the 
eternal  Son  of  God  who  became  flesh  for  our  salvation  and 
claims  our  adoration  and  worship,  that  by  believing  in  him  we 
may  have  eternal  life.  The  presiding  mind  which  planned 
this  fourfold  gospel  and  employed  the  agents  without  a formal 
agreement  and  in  conformity  to  their  talents,  tastes,  and  spheres 
of  usefulness,  is  the  Spirit  of  that  Lord  who  is  both  the  Son  of 
Man  and  the  Son  of  God,  the  Saviour  of  us  all. 

Time  of  Composition. 

As  to  the  time  of  composition,  external  testimony  and  inter- 
nal evidence  which  modern  critical  speculations  have  not  been 
able  to  invalidate,  point  to  the  seventh  decade  of  the  first  cen- 

1 This  characterization  is  very  old,  and  goes  back  to  Gregory  Nazianzen, 
Carmen  33,  where  he  enumerates  the  books  of  the  New  Test.,  and  says : 

MaT&aTos  pXv  Zypaxpev  rE fipaiois  Sav/iara  Xpurrov , 

M dpKos  5‘  *Ira\(rtj  A ovtcas 

Ilaori  8’  *Ia tdvvijs  K^pv^  peyas,  ovpavo<polrT]s. 


§ 78.  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS.  583 

tnry  for  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  and  to  the  ninth  decade  for  the 
Gospel  of  John. 

The  Synoptic  Gospels  were  certainly  written  before  a.d.  70; 
for  they  describe  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  as  an  event  still 
future,  though  nigh  at  hand,  and  connect  it  immediately  with 
the  glorious  appearing  of  our  Lord,  which  it  was  thought  might 
take  place  within  the  generation  then  living,  although  no  precise 
date  is  fixed  anywhere,  the  Lord  himself  declaring  it  to  be  un- 
known even  to  him.  Had  the  Evangelists  written  after  that 
terrible  catastrophe,  they  would  naturally  have  made  some  allu- 
sion to  it,  or  so  arranged  the  eschatological  discourses  of  our 
Lord  (Matt.  24 ; Mark  13 ; Luke  21)  as  to  enable  the  reader 
clearly  to  discriminate  between  the  judgment  of  Jerusalem  and 
the  final  judgment  of  the  world,  as  typically  foreshadowed  by 
the  former.1 

On  the  other  hand,  a considerable  number  of  years  must  have 
elapsed  after  the  resurrection.  This  is  indicated  by  the  fact 
that  several  imperfect  attempts  at  a gospel  history  had  pre- 
viously been  made  (Luke  1 : 1),  and  by  such  a phrase  as : 
“ until  this  day  ” (Matt.  27:8;  28  : 15). 

But  it  is  quite  impossible  to  fix  the  precise  year  of  composi- 
tion. The  silence  of  the  Epistles  is  no  conclusive  argument 
that  the  Synoptists  wrote  after  the  death  of  James,  Peter,  and 
Paul ; for  there  is  the  same  silence  in  the  Acts  concerning  the 
Epistles  of  Paul,  and  in  the  Epistles  concerning  the  Acts.  The 
apostles  did  not  quote  each  other’s  writings ; the  only  excep- 
tion is  the  reference  of  Peter  to  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  In  the 
multiplicity  of  their  labors  the  Evangelists  may  have  been  en- 
gaged for  several  years  in  preparing  their  works  until  they 
assumed  their  present  shape.  The  composition  of  a life  of 
Christ  now  may  well  employ  many  years  of  the  profoundest 
study. 

The  Hebrew  Matthew  was  probably  composed  first ; then 
Mark ; the  Greek  Matthew  and  Luke  cannot  be  far  apart. 

1 See  on  this  subject  Fisher’s  Beginning s of  Christianity , ch.  XI.  : “ Water 
marks  of  Age  in  the  New  Test.  Histories,”  pp.  363  sqq.,  especially  p.  371. 


584 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


If  the  Acts,  which  suddenly  break  off  with  Paul’s  imprison- 
ment in  Pome  (61-63),  were  written  before  the  death  of  the 
apostle,  the  third  Gospel,  which  is  referred  to  as  “the  first 
treatise  ” (Acts  1 : 1),  must  have  been  composed  before  a.d.  65 
or  64,  perhaps,  in  Caesarea,  where  Luke  had  the  best  opportunity 
to  gather  his  material  during  Paul’s  imprisonment  between  58 
and  60 ; but  it  was  probably  not  published  till  a few  years  after- 
wards. Whether  the  later  Synoptists  knew  and  used  the  earlier 
will  be  discussed  in  the  next  section. 

J ohn,  according  to  the  universal  testimony  of  antiquity,  which 
is  confirmed  by  internal  evidence,  wrote  his  Gospel  last,  after 
the  fall  of  Jerusalem  and  after  the  final  separation  of  the  Chris- 
tians from  the  Jews.  He  evidently  presupposes  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  (although  he  never  refers  to  them),  and  omits  the  es- 
chatological and  many  other  discourses  and  miracles,  even  the 
institution  of  the  sacraments,  because  they  were  already  suffi- 
ciently known  throughout  the  church.  But  in  this  case  too  it 
is  impossible  to  fix  the  year  of  composition.  John  carried  his 
Gospel  in  his  heart  and  memory  for  many  years  and  gradually 
reduced  it  to  writing  in  his  old  age,  between  a.d.  80  and  100 ; 
for  he  lived  to  the  close  of  the  first  century  and,  perhaps,  saw  the 
dawn  of  the  second. 

Credibility. 

The  Gospels  make  upon  every  unsophisticated  reader  the  im- 
pression of  absolute  honesty.  They  tell  the  story  without  rhe- 
torical embellishment,  without  any  exclamation  of  surprise  or 
admiration,  without  note  and  comment.  They  frankly  record 
the  weaknesses  and  failings  of  the  disciples,  including  them- 
selves, the  rebukes  which  their  Master  administered  to  them 
for  their  carnal  misunderstandings  and  want  of  faith,  their 
cowardice  and  desertion  in  the  most  trying  hour,  their  utter 
despondency  after  the  crucifixion,  the  ambitious  request  of  John 
and  James,  the  denial  of  Peter,  the  treason  of  Judas.  They 
dwell  even  with  circumstantial  minuteness  upon  the  great  sin  of 


§ 78.  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS. 


585 


tlie  leader  of  the  Twelve,  especially  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  who 
derived  his  details  no  doubt  from  Peter’s  own  lips.  They  con- 
ceal nothing,  they  apologize  for  nothing,  they  exaggerate  noth- 
ing. Their  authors  are  utterly  unconcerned  about  their  own 
fame,  and  withhold  their  own  name ; their  sole  object  is  to  tell 
the  story  of  Jesus,  which  carries  its  own  irresistible  force  and 
charm  to  the  heart  of  every  truth-loving  reader.  The  very  dis- 
crepancies in  minor  details  increase  confidence  and  exclude  the 
suspicion  of  collusion  ; for  it  is  a generally  acknowledged  princi- 
ple in  legal  evidence  that  circumstantial  variation  in  the  testi- 
mony of  witnesses  confirms  their  substantial  agreement.  There 
is  no  historical  work  of  ancient  times  which  carries  on  its  very 
face  such  a seal  of  truthfulness  as  these  Gospels. 

The  credibility  of  the  canonical  Gospels  receives  also  negative 
confirmation  from  the  numerous  apocryphal  Gospels  which  by 
their  immeasurable  inferiority  and  childishness  prove  the  utter 
inability  of  the  human  imagination,  whether  orthodox  or  heter- 
odox, to  produce  such  a character  as  the  historical  Jesus  of 
Nazareth. 

JSTo  post-apostolic  writers  could  have  composed  the  canonical 
Gospels,  and  the  apostles  themselves  could  not  have  composed 
them  without  the  inspiration  of  the  spirit  of  Christ. 


Notes. 

I.  The  Symbolism  of  the  Gospels.  This  belongs  to  the  history  of 
Christian  poetry  and  art,  but  also  to  the  history  of  exegesis,  and  may  be 
briefly  mentioned  here.  It  presents  the  limited  recognition  of  the  indi- 
viduality of  the  Gospels  among  the  fathers  and  throughout  the  middle 
ages. 

The  symbolic  attributes  of  the  Evangelists  were  suggested  by  Eze- 
kiel’s vision  of  the  four  cherubim  which  represent  the  creation  and 
carry  the  throne  of  God  (Ez.  1 : 15  sqq. ; 10  : 1 sqq.  ; 11  : 22),  and  by  the 
four  “living  creatures”  (£a>n,  not  Zrjpia,  “beasts,”  with  which  the  E.  Y. 
confounds  them)  in  the  Apocalypse  (Rev.  4 : 6-9  ; 5 : 6,  8,  11,  14 ; 6 : 1, 
3,  5,  6,  7 ; 7 : 11 ; 14  : 3 ; 15  : 7 ; 19  : 4). 

(1.)  The  theological  use.  The  cherubic  figures  which  the  prophet 
saw  in  his  exile  on  the  banks  of  the  Chebar,  symbolize  the  divine 
attributes  of  majesty  and  strength  reflected  in  the  animal  creation ; and 


586 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


the  winged  bulls  and  lions  and  the  eagle-headed  men  of  Assyrian  monu« 
ments  have  a similar  significance.  But  the  cherubim  were  interpreted 
as  prophetic  types  of  the  four  Gospels  as  early  as  the  second  century, 
with  some  difference  in  the  application. 

Irenseus  (about  170)  regards  the  faces  of  the  cherubim  (man,  lion,  ox, 
eagle)  as  “ images  of  the  life  and  work  of  the  Son  of  God,”  and  assigns 
the  man  to  Matthew,  and  the  ox  to  Luke,  but  the  eagle  to  Mark  and  the 
lion  to  John  (Adv.  Hcer.,  III.  11,  8,  ed.  Stieren  I.  469  sq.).  Afterwards 
the  signs  of  Mark  and  John  were  properly  exchanged.  So  by  Jerome  (d. 
419)  in  his  Com.  on  Ezekiel  and  other  passages.  I quote  from  the  Pro- 
logus  to  his  Comment,  in  Ev.  Matthcei  (Opera,  vol.  VII.,  p.  19,  ed.  Migne) : 
“ Ilcec  igitur  quatuor  Evangelia  multo  ante  prcedicta,  Ezechielis  quoque 
volumen  prohat,  in  quo  prima  visio  ita  contexitur:  ‘ Et  in  medio  sicut  siini- 
litudo  quatuor  animalium  : et  vultus  eorum  facies  hominis , et  facies  leonis , 
et  facies  vituli , et  facies  aquilce  ’ ( Ezech . 1:5  et  10).  Prima  hominis  facies 
Matlhceum  significat , qui  quasi  de  homine  exorsus  est  scribere : ‘ Liber  gen- 
erations Jesu  Christi,  filii  David , filii  Abraham ’ ( Mattli . 1).  Secunda , 
Marcum , in  quo  \al.  qua ] vox  leonis  in  eremo  rugientis  auditur : Vox  cla- 

mantis  in  deserto  [al.  eremo],  Par  ate  viam  Domini , rectas  facite  semitas 
ejus ’ (Marc.  1:3).  Tertia , vituli,  quoe  evangelistam  Lucam  a Zacharia 
sacei'dote  sumpsisse  initium  prcpfigurat.  Quarta , Joannem  evangelistam, 
qui  assumptis  pennis  aquilce,  et  ad  altiora  festinans,  de  Vei'bo  Dei  dis- 
putat 

Augustin  (De  Consens.  Evang.,  Lib.  I.,  c.  6,  in  Migne’s  ed.  of  the  Opera, 
tom.  III.,  1046)  assigns  the  lion  to  Matthew,  the  man  to  Mark  (whom  he 
wrongly  regarded  as  an  abbreviator  of  Matthew),  the  ox  to  Luke,  and 
the  eagle  to  John,  because  “ he  soars  as  an  eagle  above  the  clouds  of 
human  infirmity,  and  gazes  on  the  light  of  immutable  truth  with  most 
keen  and  steady  eyes  of  the  heart.”  In  another  place  {Tract.  XXXVI. 
in  Joh.  Ev.,  c.  8,  g 1)  Augustin  says:  “The  other  three  Evangelists 
walked  as  it  were  on  earth  with  our  Lord  as  man  (tamquam  cum  homine 
Domino  in  terra  ambulabant)  and  said  but  little  of  his  divinity.  But 
John,  as  if  he  found  it  oppressive  to  walk  on  earth,  opened  his  treatise, 
so  to  speak,  with  a peal  of  thunder.  ...  To  the  sublimity  of  this  be- 
ginning all  the  rest  corresponds,  and  he  speaks  of  our  Lord’s  divinity  as 
no  other.”  He  calls  the  evangelic  quaternion  “ the  fourfold  car  of  the 
Lord,  upon  which  he  rides  throughout  the  world  and  subdues  the 
nations  to  his  easy  yoke.”  Pseudo- Athanasius  (Synopsis  Script.)  assigns 
the  man  to  Matthew,  the  ox  to  Mark,  the  lion  to  Luke.  These  varia- 
tions in  the  application  of  the  emblems  reveal  the  defects  of  the  anal- 
ogy. The  man  might  as  well  (with  Lange)  be  assigned  to  Luke’s  Gos- 
pel of  humanity  as  the  sacrificial  ox.  But  Jerome’s  distribution  of  the 
symbols  prevailed  and  was  represented  in  poetry  by  Sedulius  in  the 
fifth  century. 

Among  recent  divines,  Bishop  Wordsworth,  of  Lincoln,  who  is  in 


§ 78.  THE  FOUR  GOSPEL8. 


587 


fall  sympathy  with  the  fathers  and  all  their  pious  exegetical  fancies, 
has  thus  eloquently  reproduced  the  cherubic  symbolism  (in  his  Com.  on 
the  New  Test.,  vol.  I.,  p.  xli) : “ The  Christian  church,  looking  at  the 
origin  of  the  Four  Gospels,  and  the  attributes  which  God  has  in  rich 
measure  been  pleased  to  bestow  upon  them  by  his  Holy  Spirit,  found  a 
prophetic  picture  of  them  in  the  four  living  cherubim,  named  from 
jeavenly  knowledge,  seen  by  the  prophet  Ezekiel  at  the  river  of  Chebar. 
_iike  them  the  Gospels  are  four  in  number ; like  them  they  are  the 
chariot  of  God,  who  sitteth  between  the  cherubim;  like  them  they  bear 
him  on  a winged  throne  into  all  lands ; like  them  they  move  wherever 
the  Spirit  guides  them  ; like  them  they  are  marvellously  joined  together, 
intertwined  with  coincidences  and  differences : wing  interwoven  with 
wing,  and  wheel  interwoven  with  wheel ; like  them  they  are  full  of  eyes, 
and  sparkle  with  heavenly  light ; like  them  they  sweep  from  heaven  to 
earth,  and  from  earth  to  heaven,  and  fly  with  lightning’s  speed  and  with 
the  noise  of  many  waters.  Their  sound  is  gone  out  into  all  lands , and 
their  words  to  the  end  of  the  world.”  Among  German  divines,  Dr.  Lange 
is  the  most  ingenious  expounder  of  this  symbolism,  but  he  exchanges  the 
symbols  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  See  his  Leben  Jesu , I.,  156  sqq.,  and  his 
Bibelkunde  (1881),  p.  176. 

(2.)  The  pictorial  representations  of  the  four  Evangelists,  from  the  rude 
beginnings  in  the  catacombs  and  the  mosaics  of  the  basilicas  at  Rome 
and  Ravenna  to  modern  times,  have  been  well  described  by  Mrs.  Jameson, 
Sacred  and  Legendary  Art,  vol.  I.,  132-175  (Boston  ed.,  1865).  She  dis- 
tinguishes seven  steps  in  the  progress  of  Christian  art : 1st,  the  mere 
fact,  the  four  scrolls,  or  books  of  the  Evangelists  ; 2d,  the  idea,  the  four 
rivers  of  salvation  flowing  from  on  high  to  fertilize  the  whole  earth ; 
3d,  the  prophetic  symbol,  the  winged  cherub  of  fourfold  aspect ; 4th,  the 
Christian  symbol,  the  four  “beasts”  (better,  “living  creatures”)  in  the 
Apocalypse,  with  or  without  the  angel-wings ; 5th,  the  combination  of 
the  emblematical  animal  with  the  human  form ; 6th,  the  human  person- 
ages, each  of  venerable  or  inspired  aspect,  as  becomes  the  teacher  and 
witness,  and  each  attended  by  the  scriptural  emblem — no  longer  an 
emblem,  but  an  attribute— marking  his  individual  vocation  and  charac- 
ter ; 7th,  the  human  being  only,  holding  his  Gospel,  i.e .,  his  version  of 
the  teaching  and  example  of  Christ. 

(3.)  Religious  poetry  gives  expression  to  the  same  idea.  We  find  it 
in  Juvencus  and  Sedulius,  and  in  its  perfection  in  Adam  of  St.  Victor, 
the  greatest  Latin  poet  of  the  middle  ages  (about  1172).  He  made  the 
Evangelists  the  subject  of  two  musical  poems : “ Plausu  chorus  Iceta- 
bundo ,”  and  “ Jocundare  plebs  fidelis .”  Both  are  found  in  Gautier’s  edi- 
tion (1858),  and  with  a good  English  translation  by  Digby  S.  Wrangham 
in  The  Liturgical  Poetry  of  Adam  of  St.  Victor,  London,  1881,  vol.  II.,  pp. 
156-169.  The  first  has  been  well  reproduced  in  English  by  Dr.  Plumptre 
(in  his  Com.  on  the  Synoptists , in  Ellicott’s  series,  but  with  the  omission 


588 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


of  the  first  three  stanzas).  I will  quote  the  third  stanza  of  the  first 
(with  Wrangham’s  version) : 


“ Circa  thema  generate, 

Habet  quisque  speciale 
Styli  privilegium : 

Quod  praesignat  in  propheta 
Forma  pictus  sub  discreta 
Yultus  animalium.” 

“ Though  one  set  of  facts  is  stated. 
They  by  each  one  are  related 
In  a manner  all  his  own  : 

This  the  prophet  by  four  creatures, 
Each  of  different  form  and  features, 
Pictures  for  us,  one  by  one.” 

In  the  second  poem  the  following  stanzas  are  the  best : 


Formam  viri  dant  Matthaeo, 
Quia  scripsit  sic  de  Deo, 

Sicut  descendit  ab  eo, 

Quern  plasmavit,  homine. 
Lucas  bos  est  in  figura 
Ut  praemonstrat  in  Scriptura, 
Hostiarum  tangens  jura 
Legis  sub  velamine. 

Matthew  as  the  man  is  treated, 
Since  ’tis  he,  who  hath  related, 

How  from  man,  by  God  created, 
God  did,  as  a man,  descend. 

Luke  the  ox’s  semblance  weareth, 
Since  his  Gospel  first  declareth, 

As  he  thence  the  Law’s  veil  teareth. 
Sacrifices’  aim  and  end. 

Marcus,  leo  per  desertum 
Clamans,  rugit  in  apertum : 
Iter  fiat  Deo  certum, 
Mundum  cor  a crimine. 
Sed  Johannes,  ala  bina 
Charitatis,  aquilina 
Forma,  fertur  in  divina 
Puriori  lumine. 

Mark,  the  lion,  his  voice  upraises, 

Crying  out  in  desert  places  : 

“ Cleanse  your  hearts  from  all  sin’s  traces4 
For  our  God  a way  prepare  ! ” 

John,  the  eagle’s  feature  having, 

Earth  on  love’s  twain  pinions  leaving, 
Soars  aloft,  God’s  truth  perceiving 
In  light’s  purer  atmosphere. 

Ecce  forma  bestialis, 

Quam  Scriptura  prophetalis 
Notat,  sed  materialis 
Haec  est  impositio. 
Currunt  rotis,  volant  alis  ; 
Inest  sensus  spiritalis ; 

Rota  gressus  est  icqualis, 
Ala  contemplatio. 

Thus  the  forms  of  brute  creation 
Prophets  in  their  revelation 
Use ; but  in  their  application 
All  their  sacred  lessons  bring. 
Mystic  meaning  underlieth 
Wheels  that  run,  or  wing  that  flieth 
One  consent  the  first  implieth, 
Contemplation  means  the  wing. 

Quatuor  describunt  isti 
Quadriformes  actus  Christi : 
Et  figurant,  ut  audisti, 
Quisque  sua  formula. 
Natus  homo  declaratur 
Vitulus  sacrificatur, 

Leo  mortem  depraedatur, 

Et  ascendit  aquila. 

These  four  writers,  in  portraying 
Christ,  his  fourfold  acts  displaying. 
Show  him — thou  hast  heard  the  saying— 
Each  of  them  distinctively : 

Man — of  woman  generated  ; 

Ox — in  offering  dedicated  ; 

Lion — having  death  defeated  ; 

Eagle — mounting  to  the  sky. 

Paradisus  his  rigatur, 
Viret,  floret,  foecundatur, 
His  abundat,  his  laetatur 
Quatuor  fluminibus : 

These  four  streams,  through  Eden  flowing, 
Moisture,  verdure,  still  bestowing, 

Make  the  flowers  and  fruit  there  growing 
In  rich  plenty  laugh  and  sing 

§ 78.  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS. 


589 


Fons  eat  Chriatus,  hi  aunt  rivi, 
Fons  eat  altua,  hi  proclivi, 

Ut  aaporem  fontia  vivi 
Ministrenfc  fidelibua. 


Horum  rivo  debriatis 
Sitis  crescat  caritatis, 

Ut  de  fonte  pietatia 
Satiemur  pleniua. 

Horum  trahat  nos  doctrina 
Vitiorum  de  sentina, 
Sicque  ducat  ad  divina 
Ab  imo  superius. 


Christ  the  source,  these  streams  forth 
sending ; 

High  the  source,  these  downward  trend- 
ing; 

That  they  thus  a taste  transcending 
Of  life’s  fount  to  saints  may  bring. 

At  their  stream  inebriated, 

Be  our  love’s  thirst  aggravated, 

More  completely  to  be  sated 
At  a holier  love’s  full  fount ! 

May  the  doctrine  they  provide  ua 
Draw  us  from  sin’s  slough  beside  us. 

And  to  things  divine  thus  guide  us, 

As  from  earth  we  upward  mount ! 


II.  The  Credibility  of  the  Gospels  would  never  have  been  denied  if 
it  were  not  for  the  philosophical  and  dogmatic  skepticism  which  desires 
to  get  rid  of  the  supernatural  and  miraculous  at  any  price.  It  impresses 
itself  upon  men  of  the  highest  culture  as  well  as  upon  the  unlearned 
reader.  The  striking  testimony  of  Rousseau  is  well  known  and  need  not 
be  repeated.  I will  quote  only  from  two  great  writers  who  were  by  no 
means  biased  in  favor  of  orthodoxy.  Dr.  W.  E.  Channing,  the  distin- 
guished leader  of  American  Unitarianism,  says  (with  reference  to  the 
Strauss  and  Parker  skepticism) : “ I know  no  histories  to  be  compared 
with  the  Gospels  in  marks  of  truth,  in  pregnancy  of  meaning,  in  quicken- 
ing power.”  . . . “As  to  his  [Christ’s]  biographers,  they  speak  for  them- 
selves. 'Never  were  more  simple  and  honest  ones.  They  show  us  that 
none  in  connection  with  Christ  would  give  any  aid  to  his  conception, 
for  they  do  not  receive  it.  . . . The  Gospels  are  to  me  their  own  evi- 
dence. They  are  the  simple  records  of  a being  who  could  not  have  been 
invented,  and  the  miraculous  and  more  common  parts  of  his  life  so  hang 
together,  are  so  permeated  by  the  same  spirit,  are  so  plainly  outgoings 
of  one  and  the  same  man,  that  I see  not  how  we  can  admit  one  without 
the  other.”  See  Channing’s  Memoir  by  his  nephew,  tenth  ed.,  Boston, 
1874,  vol.  II.,  pp.  431,  434,  436.  The  testimony  of  Goethe  will  have 
with  many  still  greater  weight.  He  recognized  in  the  Gospels  the 
highest  manifestation  of  the  Divine  which  ever  appeared  in  this  world, 
and  the  summit  of  moral  culture  beyond  which  the  human  mind  can 
never  rise,  however  much  it  may  progress  in  any  other  direction.  “ Ich 
halte  die  Evangelien ,”  he  says,  “ fur  durchaus  dcht ; denn  es  ist  in  ihnen 
der  Abglanz  einer  Hoheit  wirksam,  die  von  der  Person  Christi  ausging : die 
ist  gottlicher  Art , wie  nur  je  auf  Er den  das  Gottliche  erschienen  ist .”  (Ge- 
sprdche  mit  Eckermanny  III.,  371.)  Shortly  before  his  death  he  said  to 
the  same  friend  : “ Wir  wissen  gar  nicht , was  wir  Luther' n und  der  Refor- 
mation zu  danken  hahen.  Mag  die  geistige  Cultur  immer  fortschreiteny 
indgen  die  Nat urwissenschaften  in  immer  hreiterer  Ausdehnung  und  Tiefe 
wachsen  und  der  menschliche  Geist  sich  erweitern  wie  er  will:  iiber  die 


590 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


JToheit  und  sittliche  Cultur  des  Christenthums,  wie  es  in  den  Evangelien 
leuchtet , wil'd  er  nicht  hinauskommen.”  And  such  Gospels  Strauss  and 
Renan  would  fain  make  us  believe  to  be  poetic  fictions  of  illiterate 
Galilseans ! This  would  be  the  most  incredible  miracle  of  all. 

§ 79.  The  Synoptists . 

(See  the  Lit.  in  § 78.) 

The  Synoptic  Problem. 

The  fourth  Gospel  stands  by  itself  and  differs  widely  from 
the  others  in  contents  and  style,  as  well  as  in  distance  of  time 
of  composition.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  author,  writ- 
ing towards  the  close  of  the  first  century,  must  have  known  the 
three  older  ones. 

But  the  first  three  Gospels  present  the  unique  phenomenon 
of  a most  striking  agreement  and  an  equally  striking  disagree- 
ment both  in  matter  and  style,  such  as  is  not  found  among  any 
three  writers  on  the  same  subject.  Hence  they  are  called  the 
Synoptic  or  Synoptical  Gospels,  and  the  three  Evangelists, 
Synoptists.1  This  fact  makes  a harmony  of  the  Gospels  possi- 
ble in  all  essentials,  and  yet  impossible  in  many  minor  details. 
The  agreement  is  often  literal,  and  the  disagreement  often 
borders  on  contradiction,  but  without  invalidating  the  essential 
harmony. 

The  interrelationship  between  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  is, 
perhaps,  the  most  complicated  and  perplexing  critical  problem 
in  the  history  of  literature.  The  problem  derives  great  impor- 
tance from  its  close  connection  with  the  life  of  Christ,  and  has 
therefore  tried  to  the  utmost  the  learning,  acumen,  and  in- 
genuity of  modern  scholars  for  nearly  a century.  The  range  of 

1 Synopsis  ( conspectus ),  from  <rvv,  together , and  oif/cs,  mew,  is  applied  since 
Griesbach  (though  used  before  him)  to  a parallel  arrangement  of  the  Gospels 
so  as  to  exhibit  a general  view  of  the  whole  and  to  facilitate  a comparison. 
In  some  sections  the  fourth  Gospel  furnishes  parallels,  especially  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  passion  and  resurrection.  The  first  three  Evangelists  should  not 
be  called  Synoptics  (as  is  done  by  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion , vol.  I., 
213,  and  Dr.  Davidson),  but  Synoptists.  The  former  is  a Germanism  ( Synop- 
tiker ). 


§ 79.  THE  SYNOPTISTS. 


591 


hypotheses  has  been  almost  exhausted,  and  yet  no  harmonious 
conclusion  reached. 


The  Relation snip. 

The  general  agreement  of  the  Synoptists  consists : 

1.  In  the  harmonious  delineation  of  the  character  of  Christ. 
The  physiognomy  is  the  same,  only  under  three  somewhat  dif- 
ferent aspects.  All  represent  him  as  the  Son  of  man  and  as  the 
Son  of  God,  as  the  promised  Messiah  and  Saviour,  teaching  the 
purest  doctrine,  living  a spotless  life,  performing  mighty  mira- 
cles, suffering  and  dying  for  the  sins  of  the  world,  and  rising  in 
triumph  to  establish  his  kingdom  of  truth  and  righteousness. 
Such  unity  in  the  unique  character  of  the  hero  of  the  three 
narratives  has  no  parallel  in  secular  or  sacred  histories  or  biog- 
raphies, and  is  the  best  guarantee  of  the  truthfulness  of  the 
picture. 

2.  In  the  plan  and  arrangement  of  the  evangelical  history, 
yet  with  striking  peculiarities. 

(a.)  Matthew,  ch.  1 and  2,  and  Luke,  ch.  1 and  2,  and  3 : 23- 
38,  begin  with  the  genealogy  and  infancy  of  Christ,  but  with 
different  facts  drawn  from  different  sources.  Mark  opens  at 
once  with  the  preaching  of  the  Baptist ; while  the  fourth  Evan- 
gelist goes  back  to  the  eternal  pre-existence  of  the  Logos. 
About  the  thirty  years  of  Christ’s  private  life  and  his  quiet 
training  for  the  great  work  they  are  all  silent,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Luke,  who  gives  us  a glimpse  of  his  early  youth  in  the 
temple  (2  : 42-52). 

(b.)  The  preaching  and  baptism  of  John  which  prepared  the 
way  for  the  public  ministry  of  Christ,  is  related  by  all  the 
Synoptists  in  parallel  sections : Matt.  3 : 1-12  ; Mark  1 : 1-8  ; 
Luke  3 : 1-18. 

( c .)  Christ’s  baptism  and  temptation,  the  Messianic  inaugura- 
tion and  Messianic  trial : Matt.  3 : 13-17 ; 4:1-11;  Mark  1 : 9- 
11 ; ver.  12  and  13  (very  brief) ; Luke  3 : 21-23  ; 4 : 1-13. 
The  variations  here  between  Matthew  and  Luke  are  very  slight, 
as  in  the  order  of  the  second  and  third  temptation.  John  gives 


592 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


the  testimony  of  the  Baptist  to  Christ,  and  alludes  to  his  bap 
tism  (1 : 32-34),  but  differs  from  the  Synoptists. 

{(1.)  The  public  ministry  of  Christ  in  Galilee:  Matt.,  chs 
4:12-18:35;  Mark  1:14-9:50;  Luke  4:14-9:50.  But 
Matthew  14  : 22-16  : 12,  and  Mark  6 : 45-8  : 26,  narrate  a series 
of  events  connected  with  the  Galilsean  ministry,  which  are  want- 
ing in  Luke ; while  Luke  9 : 51-18  : 14,  has  another  series  of 
events  and  parables  connected  with  the  last  journey  to  Jerusalem 
which  are  peculiar  to  him. 

(e.)  The  journey  to  Jerusalem:  Matt.,  chs.  19:1-20:34; 
Mark  10  : 1-52  ; Luke  18  : 15-19  : 28. 

(./.)  The  entry  into  Jerusalem  and  activity  there  during  the 
week  before  the  last  passover : Matt.,  chs.  21-25 ; Mark,  chs. 
11-13  ; Luke  19  : 29-21  : 38. 

(y.)  The  passion,  crucifixion,  and  resurrection  in  parallel  sec- 
tions, but  with  considerable  minor  divergences,  especially  in  the 
denial  of  Peter  and  the  history  of  the  resurrection : Matt.,  chs. 
26-28 ; Mark,  chs.  1L-16 ; Luke,  chs.  22-24. 

The  events  of  the  last  week,  from  the  entry  to  the  resurrec- 
tion (from  Palm  Sunday  to  Easter),  occupy  in  all  the  largest 
space,  about  one-fourth  of  the  whole  narrative. 

3.  In  the  selection  of  the  same  material  and  in  verbal  co- 
incidences, as  in  the  eschatological  discourses  of  Christ,  with 
an  almost  equal  number  of  little  differences.  Thus  the  three 
accounts  of  the  healing  of  the  paralytic  (Matt.  9 : 1-8,  and 
parallel  passages),  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  the  trans- 
figuration, almost  verbally  agree.  Occasionally  the  Synoptists 
concur  in  rare  and  difficult  words  and  forms  in  the  same  con- 
nection, as  e7rLovcrLo<;  (in  the  Lord’s  Prayer),  the  diminutive 
cor Cov,  little  ear  (of  Malchus,  Matt.  26  : 51,  and  parallel  pas- 
sages), 3ucr/coAa)?,  hard  (for  a rich  man  to  enter  into  the  king- 
dom, Matt.  19  : 23,  etc.).  These  coincidences  are  the  more 
striking  since  our  Lord  spoke  usually  in  Aramaic;  but  those 
words  may  have  been  Palestinian  provincialisms.1 

1 Holtzmann  (p.  12)  and  others  include  also  among  the  verbal  coincidences 
the  irregular  b.<ptwvrai  (the  Doric  form  of  pass,  perf.,  3 pers.,  plur.),  Matt. 


§ 79.  THE  SYNOPTISTS. 


S93 

The  largest  portion  of  verbal  agreement,  to  the  extent  of 
about  seven-eighths,  is  found  in  the  words  of  others,  especially 
of  Christ ; and  the  largest  portion  of  disagreement  in  the  narra- 
tives of  the  writers.1  This  fact  bears  against  the  theory  of 
interdependence,  and  proves,  on  the  one  hand,  the  reverent 


9 : 2,  5 ; Mark  2 : 5,  9 ; Luke  5 : 20,  23,  and  the  double  augment  in  ane/ca- 
reo-Tctihj,  Matt.  12  : 13  ; Mark  3:5;  Luke  6 : 10.  But  the  former  is  ruled  out 
by  the  better  reading  cupievrai,  which  is  adopted  by  Lachmann,  Tischendorf, 
Tregelles,  and  Westcott  and  Hort,  in  Matt.  9 : 2,  5,  and  in  Mark  2 : 5.  More- 
over, the  Doric  form  is  not  confined  to  the  New  Test.,  but  somewhat  widely 
diffused  ; see  Moulton’s  Winer,  p.  97,  note.  And  as  to  the  double  augment,  it 
occurs  also  in  the  Sept,  (see  Trommius’  Concord. , I. , 163,  sub  airoKa^ia-TTifu) ; 
comp,  also  ctTre/careVT-rj  in  Mark  8 : 25.  Ebrard  ( Fk  Krit .,  p.  1054)  quotes  a 
passage  from  Pseudo-Lucian  (Philopatr. , c.  27)  where  a-n^Kari(nr\<Te  occurs. 

1 Mr.  Norton  brings  out  this  fact  very  fully  in  his  Evidences  of  the  Genuine- 
ness of  the  Gospels  (Boston,  ed.  of  1875,  p.  464  sq. ).  I give  his  results  : “ In  Mat- 
thew’s Gospel,  the  passages  verbally  coincident  with  one  or  both  of  the  other 
two  Gospels  amount  to  less  than  a sixth  part  of  its  contents ; and  of  this  about 
seven-eighths  occur  in  the  recital  of  the  words  of  others,  and  only  about  one- 
eighth  in  what,  by  way  of  distinction,  I may  call  mere  narrative,  in  which  the 
evangelist,  speaking  in  his  own  person,  was  unrestrained  in  the  choice  of  bis 
expressions.  In  Mark,  the  proportion  of  coincident  passages  to  the  whole  con- 
tents of  the  Gospel  is  about  one-sixth,  of  which  not  one-fifth  occurs  in  the 
narrative.  Luke  has  still  less  agreement  of  expression  with  the  other  evan- 
gelists. The  passages  in  which  it  is  found  amount  only  to  about  a tenth  part 
of  his  Gospel ; and  but  an  inconsiderable  portion  of  it  appears  in  the  narra- 
tive, in  which  there  are  few  instances  of  its  existence  for  more  than  half  a 
dozen  words  together.  In  the  narrative,  it  may  be  computed  as  less  than  a 
twentieth  part.  These  definite  proportions  are  important,  as  showing  distinctly 
in  how  small  a part  of  each  Gospel  there  is  any  verbal  coincidence  with  either 
of  the  other  two  ; and  to  how  great  a degree  such  coincidence  is  confined  to 
passages  in  which  the  evangelists  professedly  give  the  words  of  others,  par- 
ticularly of  Jesus. — The  proportions  should,  however,  be  further  compared 
with  those  which  the  narrative  part  of  each  Gospel  bears  to  that  in  which  the 
words  of  others  are  professedly  repeated.  Matthew’s  narrative  occupies  about 
one-fourth  of  his  Gospel,  Mark’s  about  one-half,  and  Luke’s  about  one-third. 
It  may  easily  be  computed,  therefore,  that  the  proportion  of  verbal  coinci- 
dence found  in  the  narrative  part  of  each  Gospel,  compared  with  what  exists 
in  the  other  part,  is  about  in  the  following  ratios  : in  Matthew  as  one  to  some- 
what more  than  two,  in  Mark  as  one  to  four,  and  in  Luke  as  one  to  ten.  . . . 
We  cannot  explain  this  phenomenon  by  the  supposition  that  the  Gospels  were 
transcribed  either  one  from  another,  or  all  from  common  documents;  for,  if 
such  transcription  had  been  the  cause,  it  would  not  have  produced  results  so 
unequal  in  the  different  portions  into  which  the  Gospels  naturally  divide 
themselves.” 


594 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


loyalty  of  all  the  Synoptists  to  the  teaching  of  the  great  Master, 
btit  also,  on  the  other  hand,  their  freedom  and  independence  of 
observation  and  judgment  in  the  narration  of  facts.  Words  can 
be  accurately  reported  only  in  one  form,  as  they  were  spoken ; 
while  events  may  be  correctly  narrated  in  different  words. 


Numerical  Estimates  of  the  Harmony  and  Yariation. 

The  extent  of  the  coincidences  and  divergences  admits  of  an 
approximate  calculation  by  sections,  verses,  and  words.  In  every 
case  the  difference  of  size  must  be  kept  in  mind : Luke  is  the 
largest,  with  72  pages  (in  Westcott  and  Hort’s  Greek  Testa- 
ment) ; Matthew  comes  next,  with  68  pages ; Mark  last,  with 
42  pages.  (John  has  55  pages.) 

1.  Estimate  by  Sections. 

Matthew  has  in  all  78,  Mark,  67,  Luke,  93  sections. 

Dividing  the  Synoptic  text  into  124  sections,  with  Dr.  Heuss,1 2 


All  Evangelists  have  in  common 47  sections. 

Matthew  and  Mark  alone  have 12  “ 

Matthew  and  Luke  “ “ 2 “ 

Mark  and  Luke  “ “ 6 “ 

Sections  peculiar  to  Matthew 17 

“ “ “ Mark 2 

“ “ “ Luke 38 


Another  arrangement  by  sections  has  been  made  by  Norton, 
Stroud,  and  Westcott.3  If  the  total  contents  of  the  Gospels  be 
represented  by  100,  the  following  result  is  obtained : 


Mark  has 7 peculiarities  and  93  coincidences. 

Matthew  has 42  “ “ 58 

Luke  has 59  “ “41 

[John  has 92  “ “ 8 “] 


1 Oeschichte  der  heil.  Schriften  N.  Test.,  I.,  p.  175  (5th  ed.,  1874).  See  also 
his  Uutoire  Evangelique , Paris,  1876  (. Nouveau  Testament , I.  partie). 

2 See  Westcott,  lntrod.  to  the  Gospels , p.  191,  fifth  ed. 


§ 79.  THE  SYNOPTISTS. 


595 


If  the  extent  of  all  the  coincidences  be  represented  by  100, 
their  proportion  is : 


Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  have 53  coincidences. 

Matthew  and  Luke  have 21  “ 

Matthew  and  Mark  have 20  “ 

Mark  and  Luke  have 6 “ 


“ In  St.  Mark,”  says  Westcott,  “ there  are  not  more  than 
twenty -four  verses  to  which  no  parallel  exists  in  St.  Matthew 
and  St.  Luke,  though  St.  Mark  exhibits  everywhere  traits  of 
vivid  detail  which  are  peculiar  to  his  narrative.” 


2.  Estimate  by  Verses . 

According  to  the  calculation  of  Reuss,1 

Matthew  contains 330  verses  peculiar  to  him. 

Mark  contains 68  “ “ “ 

Luke  contains 541  “ “ “ 

Matthew  and  Mark  have  from  170  to  180  verses  in  common,  but 
not  found  in  Luke. 

Matthew  and  Luke  have  from  230  to  240  verses  in  common,  but 
not  found  in  Mark. 

Mark  and  Luke  have  about  50  verses  in  common,  but  not  found 
in  Matthew. 


The  total  number  of  verses  common  to  all  three  Synoptists  is 
only  from  330  to  370.  But,  as  the  verses  in  the  second  Gospel 
are  generally  shorter,  it  is  impossible  to  make  an  exact  mathe- 
matical calculation  by  verses. 


3.  Estimate  by  Words. 

A still  more  accurate  test  can  be  furnished  by  the  number  of 
words.  This  has  not  yet  been  made  as  far  as  I know,  but  a 
basis  of  calculation  is  furnished  by  Rushbrooke  in  his  admirably 
printed  Synopticon  (1880),  where  the  words  common  to  the 
three  Synoptists,  the  words  common  to  each  pair,  and  the  words 

1 Oesch .,  etc.,  I.,  p.  175,  followed  by  Archbishop  Thomson  in  Speaker’s 
Com.  New  Test.,  vol.  I.,  p.  viii. 


m 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


peculiar  to  each,  are  distinguished  by  different  type  and  color. 
The  words  found  in  all  constitute  the  “ triple  tradition,”  and 
the  nearest  approximation  to  the  common  Greek  source  from 
which  all  have  directly  or  indirectly  drawn. 

On  the  basis  of  this  Synojpticon  the  following  calculations 
have  been  made  : a 


A. — Number  of  words  in 

Words  common  to 
all. 

Per  cent,  of  words 
in  common. 

Matthew 

18,222 

2,651, 

or 

•14£ 

Mark 

11,158 

2,651, 

or 

.23| 

Luke 

19,209 

2,651, 

or 

.13| 

48,589 3 

7,953 

.16* 

IS. — Additional  words  in  common.  Whole  per  cent,  in  common 


Matthew. . . . ) 2,793  (or  jn  au  5,444) 

Matthew. . . . ! 2,445  (or  in  all  5)066) 

Luke ) 

^ark 1 1,174  (or  in  all  3,825)  I 

Luke ) t 


with  Mark 

“ Matthew 

“ Luke 

“ Matthew 

“ Luke 

“ Mark... 


29  + 
48  + 
27  + 
26  + 
34  + 
20- 


1 See  the  Literature  above.  Dr.  Edwin  A.  Abbott,  of  London,  suggested  the 
work,  and  quotes  a specimen  (though  all  in  black  type)  in  his  art.  “ Gospels  ” 
in  the  “ Encycl.  Brit.”  He  draws  from  it  a conclusion  favorable  to  the  priority 
of  Mark,  from  whom,  he  thinks,  Matthew  and  Luke  have  borrowed.  The 
specimen  is  the  parable  of  the  wicked  husbandmen,  Matt.  21  : 33-44 ; Luke 
20  : 9-18;  Mark  12  : 1-11. 

2 With  the  aid  of  my  son  (Rev.  D.  S.  S.).  The  method  by  which  the  esti- 
mate was  made  deals  with  the  root  forms  of  the  words  only,  and  ignores  all 
inflexions — as,  for  instance,  tenses  of  verbs  and  cases  of  nouns.  The  result  is 
approximately , though  not  exactly,  true. 

3 This  includes  172  words  of  the  disputed  section,  Mark  16  : 9—20  (bracketed 
by  Westcott  and  Hort,  and  set  apart  in  the  English  Revision).  Deducting 
these,  the  total  number  of  words  in  Mark  is  10,988,  and  the  total  number  of 
words  in  the  three  Synoptists,  48,417. 

The  number  of  words  in  the  English  Version  is  of  course  much  larger,  but 
has  no  bearing  upon  the  argument.  I merely  present  as  an  item  of  interest 
the  calculation  of  Rev.  Rufus  Wendell,  in  the  “Student’s  Edition  of  the 
(Revised)  New  Testament”  (N.  Y.,  1882).  He  gives  the  following  results  : 

Whole  number  of  words  in 
the  Revised  Version.  1881. 


Matthew 

Mark 

Luke 

John 


23,407 

14,854 

25,654 

19,007 


§ 79.  THE  SYNOPTISTS. 


597 


C. — Words  peculiar  to  Matthew 10,363,  or  56  + per  cent. 

“ “ “ Mark 4,540,  or  40+  “ 

" “ “Luke 12,969,  or  67+  “ 

27,872 

d. — These  figures  give  the  following  results : 

(a.)  The  proportion  of  words  peculiar  to  the  Synoptic  Gos* 
pels  is  28,000  out  of  48,000,  more  than  one  half. 


In  Matthew 56  words  out  of  every  100  are  peculiar. 

In  Mark 40  “ “ “ 100  “ 

In  Luke 67  “ “ “ 100  “ 


(b.)  The  number  of  coincidences  common  to  all  three  is  less 
than  the  number  of  the  divergences. 

Matthew  agrees  with  the  other  two  Gospels  in  1 word  out  of  7. 

Mark  “ “ “ “ “ 1 “ “ 4+ 

Luke  “ “ « “ “ 1 “ “ 8. 

(<?.)  But,  comparing  the  Gospels  two  by  two,  it  is  evident  that 
Matthew  and  Mark  have  most  in  common,  and  Matthew  and 
Luke  are  most  divergent. 

One-half  of  Mark  is  found  in  Matthew. 

One  fourth  of  Luke  is  found  in  Matthew. 

One-third  of  Mark  is  found  in  Luke.1 

(d.)  The  general  conclusion  from  these  figures  is  that  all  three 
Gospels  widely  diverge  from  the  common  matter,  or  triple  tradi- 
tion, Mark  the  least  so  and  Luke  the  most  (almost  twice  as  much 
as  Mark).  On  the  other  hand,  both  Matthew  and  Luke  are 
nearer  Mark  than  Luke  and  Matthew  are  to  each  other. 

The  Solution  of  the  Problem. 

Three  ways  open  themselves  for  a solution  of  the  Synoptic 
problem : either  the  Synoptists  depend  on  one  another ; or  they 

1 The  following  lines,  representing  the  relative  lengths  of  the  three  Gospels, 
show  the  extent  of  their  verbal  coincidence  and  divergence.  The  dots  divide 
the  lines  in  half,  and  the  marks  into  thirds  : 

Luke,  

Mark,  ' 

Matthew,  


598 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


all  depend  on  older  sources;  or  the  dependence  is  of  both 
kinds.  Each  of  these  hypotheses  admits  again  of  several  modi- 
fications.1 

A satisfactory  solution  of  the  problem  must  account  for  the 
differences  as  well  as  for  the  coincidences.  If  this  test  be  ap- 
plied, the  first  and  the  third  hypotheses  with  their  various 
modifications  must  be  ruled  out  as  unsatisfactory,  and  we  are 
shut  up  to  the  second  as  at  least  the  most  probable. 

The  Canonical  Gospels  Independent  of  One  Another. 

There  is  no  direct  evidence  that  any  of  the  three  Synoptists 
saw  and  used  the  work  of  the  others;  nor  is  the  agreement 
of  such  a character  that  it  may  not  be  as  easily  and  better  ex- 
plained from  antecedent  sources.  The  advocates  of  the  theory 
of  interdependency,  or  the  “ borrowing  ” hypothesis,3  differ 
widely  among  themselves : some  make  Matthew,  others  Mark, 
others  Luke,  the  source  of  the  other  two  or  at  least  of  one  of 
them ; while  still  others  go  back  from  the  Synoptists  in  their 
present  form  to  a proto- Mark  ( Urmarhus\  or  j^ofo-Mattkew 
( Urmatthoeus ),  orjmtfo-Luke  ( UrluJcas ),  or  other  fictitious  ante- 
canonical  documents ; thereby  confessing  the  insufficiency  of 
the  borrowing  hypothesis  pure  and  simple. 

There  is  no  allusion  in  any  of  the  Synoptists  to  the  others ; 
and  yet  Luke  expressly  refers  to  many  earlier  attempts  to  write 
the  gospel  history.  Papias,  Irenseus,  and  other  ancient  writers 
assume  that  they  wrote  independently.3  The  first  who  made 
Mark  a copyist  of  Matthew  is  Augustin,  and  his  view  has  been 
completely  reversed  by  modern  research.  The  whole  theory 
degrades  one  or  two  Synoptists  to  the  position  of  slavish  and  yet 
arbitrary  compilers,  not  to  say  plagiarists ; it  assumes  a strange 

1 GermaD  scholars  have  convenient  terms  for  these  various  hypotheses,  as 
Benut2ungshyp0the.se  (“  borrowing”  hypothesis),  UrevangeliumsJiypothese,  Tra- 
ditionshypothese,  Tendenzhypothese , Cornbinationshypothese , Diegesentheorie, 
Markusliypothese , Urmarkushypothese , etc.  See  the  Notes  below. 

2 Used  by  recent  English  writers  as  a rendering  for  Benutzungshypothese. 

3 Clement  of  Alexandria  makes  no  exception,  for  he  merely  states  (in  Euseb. 
H.  E . , VI.  14)  that  those  Gospels  which  contain  the  genealogies  (Matthew  aDd 
Luke)  were  written  first,  Mark  next,  and  John  last. 


79.  THE  SYNOPTISTS. 


599 


mixture  of  dependence  and  affected  originality ; it  weakens  the 
independent  value  of  their  history ; and  it  does  not  account  for 
the  omissions  of  most  important  matter,  and  for  many  differ- 
ences in  common  matter.  For  the  Synoptists  often  differ  just 
where  we  should  most  expect  them  to  agree.  Why  should 
Mark  be  silent  about  the  history  of  the  infancy,  the  whole  ser- 
mon on  the  Mount  (the  Magna  Charta  of  Christ’s  kingdom), 
the  Lord’s  Prayer,  and  important  parables,  if  he  had  Mat- 
thew, chs.  1 and  2,  clis.  5-7,  and  cli.  13,  before  him  ? Why 
should  he,  a pupil  of  Peter,  record  the  Lord’s  severe  rebuke  to 
Peter  (8  : 27-33),  but  fail  to  mention  from  Matthew  (16  : 16-23) 
the  preceding  remarkable  laudation  : “ Thou  art  Rock,  and 
upon  this  rock  I will  build  my  church  ? ” Why  should  Luke 
omit  the  greater  part  of  the  sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  all 
the  appearances  of  the  risen  Lord  in  Galilee?  Why  should 
he  ignore  the  touching  anointing  scene  in  Bethany,  and  thus 
neglect  to  aid  in  fulfilling  the  Lord’s  prediction  that  this  act  of 
devotion  should  be  spoken  of  as  a memorial  of  Mary  “ where- 
soever this  gospel  shall  be  preached  in  the  whole  world  ” (Matt. 
26 : 13  ; Mark  14:9)?  Why  should  he,  the  pupil  and  companion 
of  Paul,  fail  to  record  the  adoration  of  the  Magi,  the  story  of  the 
woman  of  Canaan,  and  the  command  to  evangelize  the  Gentiles, 
so  clearly  related  by  Matthew,  the  Evangelist  of  the  Jews  (2  : 1- 
12 ; 15  : 21-28  ; 24 : 14 ; 28  : 19)  ? Why  should  Luke  and  Mat 
tliew  give  different  genealogies  of  Christ,  and  even  different 
reports  of  the  model  prayer  of  our  Lord,  Luke  omitting  (beside 
the  doxology,  which  is  also  wanting  in  the  best  MSS.  of  Mat- 
thew) the  petition,  “Thy  will  be  done,  as  in  heaven,  so  on 
earth,”  and  the  concluding  petition,  “ but  deliver  us  from  evil  ” 
(or  “ the  evil  one  ”),  and  substituting  “ sins  ” for  “ debts,”  and 
“ Father  ” for  “ Our  Father  who  art  in  heaven  ” ? Why  should 
all  three  Synoptists  differ  even  in  the  brief  and  official  title 
on  the  Cross,  and  in  the  words  of  institution  of  the  Lord’s 
Supper,  where  Paul,  writing  in  57,  agrees  with  Luke,  refer- 
ring to  a revelation  from  the  Lord  (1  Cor.  11  : 23)  ? Had  the 
Synoptists  seen  the  work  of  the  others,  they  could  easily  have  har- 


600 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


monized  these  discrepancies  and  avoided  the  appearance  o! 
contradiction.  To  suppose  that  they  purposely  varied  to  conceal 
plagiarism  is  a moral  impossibility.  We  can  conceive  no  rea- 
sonable motive  of  adding  a third  Gospel  to  two  already  known 
to  the  writer,  except  on  the  ground  of  serious  defects,  which  do 
not  exist  (certainly  not  in  Matthew  and  Luke  as  compared  with 
Mark),  or  on  the  ground  of  a presumption  which  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  modest  tone  and  the  omission  of  the  very  name 
of  the  writers. 

These  difficulties  are  felt  by  the  ablest  advocates  of  the  bor- 
rowing hypothesis,  and  hence  they  call  to  aid  one  or  several 
pre-canonical  Gospels  which  are  to  account  for  the  startling  dis- 
crepancies and  signs  of  independence,  whether  in  omissions  or 
additions  or  arrangement.  But  these  pre-canonical  Gospels, 
with  the  exception  of  the  lost  Hebrew  Matthew,  are  as  fictitious 
as  the  Syro-Chaldaic  Urevangelium  of  Eichhorn,  and  have  been 
compared  to  the  epicycles  of  the  old  astronomers,  which  were 
invented  to  sustain  the  tottering  hypothesis  of  cycles. 

As  to  Luke,  we  have  shown  that  he  departs  most  from  the 
triple  tradition,  although  he  is  supposed  to  have  written  last, 
and  it  is  now  almost  universally  agreed  that  he  did  not  use  the 
canonical  Matthew.1  Whether  he  used  the  Hebrew  Matthew 
and  the  Greek  Mark  or  a lost  proto-Mark,  is  disputed,  and  at 
least  very  doubtful.2  He  follows  a plan  of  his  own  ; he  ignores 

1 So  Weisse,  Ewald,  Reuss,  Ritschl,  Thiersch,  Plitt,  Meyer,  Holtzmann, 
Weizsacker,  Mangold,  Godet,  Weiss.  See  Meyer  on  Matthew , p.  34  (0th  ed.), 
and  on  Luke , p.  238  (6th  ed.  by  Weiss,  1878).  Only  the  Tubingen  “tendency 
critics  ” maintain  the  contrary,  and  this  is  almost  necessary  in  order  to 
maintain  the  late  date  which  they  assign  to  Luke.  Had  he  written  in  the 
second  or  even  at  the  end  of  the  first  century,  he  could  not  possibly  have 
been  ignorant  of  Matthew.  But  his  very  independence  proves  his  early  date. 

2 For  the  use  of  Mark  by  Luke  are  Reuss,  Weiss,  and  most  of  the  advocates 
of  the  Urmarkushypothese.  Against  such  use  are  Weizsacker,  Godet,  and 
all  those  who  (with  Griesbach)  make  Mark  an  epitomizer  of  Matthew  and 
Luke.  Farrar  also,  in  his  Com.  on  Luke,  p.  9,  very  decidedly  maintains  the 
independence  of  Luke  both  on  Matthew  and  Mark  : “It  may  be  regarded  as 
certain,”  he  says,  “that  among  these  ‘attempts’  Luke  did  not  class  the  Gos- 
pels of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark.  The  inference  that  he  was  either  unaware 
of  the  existence  of  those  Gospels,  or  made  no  direct  use  of  them,  suggests 


§ 79.  TIIE  SYNOPTISTS. 


C01 


a whole  cycle  of  events  in  Mark  from  cli.  6 : 45  to  ch.  8 : 26  ; he 
omits  in  the  common  sections  the  graphic  touches  of  Mark, 
for  which  he  has  others  equally  graphic ; and  with  a far 
better  knowledge  of  Greek  he  has  yet  more  Hebraisms  than 
Mark,  because  he  drew  largely  on  Hebrew  sources.  As  to  Mat- 
thew, he  makes  the  impression  of  primitive  antiquity,  and  his 
originality  and  completeness  have  found  able  advocates  from 
Augustin  down  to  Griesbacli  and  Keim.  And  as  to  Mark,  his 
apparent  abridgments,  far  from  being  the  work  of  a copyist, 
are  simply  rapid  statements  of  an  original  writer,  with  many 
fresh  and  lively  details  which  abundantly  prove  his  indepen- 
dence. On  the  other  hand,  in  several  narratives  he  is  more  full 
and  minute  than  either  Matthew  or  Luke.1  His  independence 
has  been  successfully  proven  by  the  most  laborious  and  minute 
investigations  and  comparisons.2  Hence  many  regard  him  as 
the  primitive  Evangelist  made  use  of  by  both  Matthew  and 
Luke,  but  disagree  among  themselves  as  to  whether  it  was  the 
canonical  Mark  or  a proto-Mark.3  In  either  case  Matthew  and 

itself  with  the  utmost  force  when  we  place  side  by  side  any  of  the  events 
which  they  narrate  in  common,  and  mark  the  minute  and  inexplicable  differ- 
ences which  incessantly  occur  even  amid  general  similarity.” 

1 Compare  the  healing  of  the  paralytic,  ch.  2 : 3-12,  with  Matt.  9 : 2-8  ; 
the  murder  of  John  the  Baptist,  ch.  6 : 14-29,  with  Matt.  14  : 1-13  ; Luke 
9 : 7-9;  the  healing  of  the  demoniac  boy,  ch.  9 : 14-29,  with  Matt.  17  : 14-21 
and  Luke  9 : 37-43  ; also  the  accounts  of  Peter’s  denial. 

2 I mean  especially  the  works  of  Wilke  {Der  Urevangelist , 1838),  Holtzmann 
{Die  Synopt.  Evang.,  1863),  and  Weiss  {Das  Marcusevangelium  und  seine 
synoptischen  ParaUelen , 1872;  comp,  his  Matthausevangelium , etc.,  1876). 
Weiss  deserves  all  the  more  a hearing  as  he  strenuously  advocates  the  genuine- 
ness of  John.  See  notes  below.  Dr.  Fisher  thinks  that  u the  independence 
of  Mark  as  related  to  the  other  Gospels  is  one  of  the  most  assured  and  most 
valuable  results  of  recent  criticism.”  The  Beginnings  of  Christianity , p.  275. 
Dr.  Davidson  in  the  ‘ ‘ revised  and  improved  edition  ” of  his  Introduction , 
vol.  I.,  551-563,  still  adheres  to  the  old  Tubingen  position  of  the  dependence 
of  Mark  upon  both  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  ignores  the  works  of  Wilke, 
Holtzmann,  Weiss,  Renan,  and  the  article  of  his  own  countryman,  Abbott,  in 
the  “Encycl.  Brit.” 

3 Holtzmann,  Mangold,  E.  A.  Abbott,  and  others  go  back  to  a fictitious 
Urmarkus ; while  Ewald,  Meyer,  and  Weiss  make  our  canonical  Mark  the 
basis  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  yet  with  the  important  addition  that  Mark  himself 
used,  besides  the  oral  tradition  of  Peter,  the  lost  Hebrew  Matthew,  or  rather 


602 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Luke  would  be  guilty  of  plagiarism.  What  should  we  think  of 
an  historian  of  our  day  who  would  plunder  another  historian  of 
one-third  or  one-half  of  the  contents  of  his  book  without  a word 
of  acknowledgment  direct  or  indirect  ? Let  us  give  the  Evan- 
gelists at  least  the  credit  of  common  honesty,  which  is  the  basis 
of  all  morality. 

Apostolic  Teaching  the  Primary  Source  of  all  the 

Synoptists. 

The  only  certain  basis  for  the  solution  of  the  problem  is  given 
to  us  in  the  preface  of  Luke.  He  mentions  two  sources  of  his 
own  Gospel — but  not  necessarily  of  the  two  other  Synoptic  Gos- 
pels— namely,  the  oral  tradition  or  deliverance  of  original  “ eye- 
witnesses and  ministers  of  the  word  ” (apostles,  evangelists,  and 
other  primitive  disciples),  and  a number  of  written  “ narratives,” 
drawn  up  by  “many,”  but  evidently  incomplete  and  fragmentary, 
so  as  to  induce  him  to  prepare,  after  accurate  investigation,  a 
regular  history  of  “those  matters  which  have  been  fulfilled 
among  us.”  Besides  this  important  hint,  we  may  be  aided  by 
the  well-known  statements  of  Papias  about  the  Hebrew  Gospel 
of  Matthew  and  the  Greek  Mark,  whom  he  represents  as  the 
interpreter  of  Peter. 

The  chief  and  common  source  from  which  the  Synoptists  de- 
rived their  Gospels  was  undoubtedly  the  living  apostolic  tradi- 
tion or  teaching  which  is  mentioned  by  Luke  in  the  first  order. 
This  teaching  was  nothing  more  or  less  than  a faithful  report  of 
the  words  and  deeds  of  Christ  himself  by  honest  and  intelli- 
gent eye-witnesses.1  He  told  his  disciples  to  preach,  not  to 
write,  the  gospel,  although  the  writing  was,  of  course,  not  for- 
bidden, but  became  necessary  for  th  % preservation  of  the  gospel 

a Greek  translation  of  it,  which  was  more  than  a mere  collection  of  discourses 
(<rvvTa£is  ruv  Xoyicov)  and  embraced  also  brief  narratives.  But  if  Mark  had 
the  rich  collection  of  our  Lord’s  discourses  before  him,  his  meagreness  in  that 
department  is  all  the  more  difficult  to  account  for. 

1 Luke  1:2:  ica&ws  irap  e'5  o <r  av  (handed  down  by  the  living  word)  ypuv  oi 
air  apxvs  (i.  e. , from  the  beginning  of  the  public  ministry  of  Christ ; comp. 
Acts  1 : 21  sq. ; John  15  : 27)  ainivTai  Kal  vmjperai  yw6fiwoi  rov  \6you  (the 
same  persons). 


§ 79.  THE  SYNOPTISTS. 


603 


in  its  purity.  They  had  at  first  only  “ hearers ; ” while  the  law 
and  the  prophets  had  readers.1 

Among  the  Jews  and  Arabs  the  memory  was  specially  trained 
in  the  accurate  repetition  and  perpetuation  of  sacred  words  and 
facts.9  The  Mishna  was  not  reduced  to  writing  for  two  or  three 
hundred  years.  In  the  East  everything  is  more  settled  and 
stationary  than  in  the  West,  and  the  traveller  feels  himself  as 
by  magic  transferred  back  to  manners  and  habits  as  well  as  the 
surroundings  of  apostolic  and  patriarchal  times.  The  memory 
is  strongest  where  it  depends  most  on  itself  and  least  upon 
books.3 

The  apostolic  tradition  or  preaching  was  chiefly  historical,  a 
recital  of  the  wonderful  public  life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  and 
centred  in  the  crowning  facts  of  the  crucifixion  and  resurrec- 
tion. This  is  evident  from  the  specimens  of  sermons  in  the 
Acts.  The  story  was  repeated  in  public  and  in  private  from 
day  to  day  and  sabbath  to  sabbath.  The  apostles  and  primitive 
evangelists  adhered  closely  and  reverently  to  what  they  saw  and 
heard  from  their  divine  Master,  and  their  disciples  faithfully 
reproduced  their  testimony.  “They  continued  steadfastly  in 

1 Hearers  and  hearing  of  the  gospel  are  spoken  of  in  many  passages,  as 
Matt.  13  : 14 ; Luke  7:1;  John  12  : 38  ; Acts  17  : 20  ; Rom.  2 : 13  ; 1 Thess. 
2 : 13  ; James  1 : 22,  23,  25.  The  reading  ( avayivunriceiv ) is  mostly  used  of  the 
Old  Testament  : Matt.  12  : 3,  5 ; 21  : 16,  42  ; 24  : 15  ; Mark  2 : 25 ; 12  : 10, 
26;  13  : 14  ; Luke  4 : 16  ; 6:3;  10  : 26  ; Acts  8 : 28,  30,  32  ; 13  : 27  ; 15  : 21, 
etc.  ; of  the  Epistles  of  Paul  : Eph.  3:4;  Col.  4 : 16  ; 1 Thess.  6 : 27 ; of  the 
book  of  Revelation  : Rev.  1:3;  5:4. 

2 The  rabbinical  rule  (in  Shabb.  f.  15,  1)  was  : “ Verba  preeceptoris  sine  ulla 
immutatione,  ut  prolata  ab  iUo  fuerunt.  erant  recitanda , ne  diversa  iUi  affin- 
geretur  sententia.  ” 

3 Renan,  Les  Evangiles,  p.  96  : “ La  tradition  vivante  (£< w<ra  (pwv)]  koI  fxivovaa, 
Papias)  etait  le  grand  reservoir  ou  tous  puisaient.  . . . Le  meme  phenomene  se 
retrouve , du  reste,  dans  presque  toutes  les  litteratures  sacrees.  Les  Vedas  ont 
traverse  des  siecles  sans  etre  ecrits  ; un  homme  qui  se  respectait  devait  les  savoir 
par  coeur.  Celui  qui  avait  besoin  d'un  manuscrit  pour  reciter  ces  hymnes  an- 
tiques faisait  un  aveu  cT ignorance ; aussi  les  copies  rden  ont-elles  jamais  ete 
estimees.  Citer  de  memoir e la  Bible , le  Coran , est  encore  de  nos  jours  un  point 
d'honneur  pour  les  Orientaux .”  Renan  thinks  that  most  of  the  Old  Testament 
quotations  in  the  New  Test,  are  from  memory.  My  own  observations,  and 
those  of  friends  residing  in  the  East,  confirm  the  uniformity  of  oral  tradition 
and  the  remarkable  strength  of  memory  among  the  Arabs. 


604 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


the  apostles’  teaching  ” (Acts  2 : 42).  Reverence  would  forbid 
them  to  vary  from  it ; and  yet  no  single  individual,  not  even 
Peter  or  John,  could  take  in  the  whole  fulness  of  Christ.  One 
recollected  this,  another  another  part  of  the  gospel  story ; one 
had  a better  memory  for  words,  another  for  facts.  These  dif- 
ferences, according  to  varying  capacities  and  recollections,  would 
naturally  appear,  and  the  common  tradition  adapted  itself,  with- 
out any  essential  alteration,  to  particular  classes  of  hearers  who 
were  first  Hebrews  in  Palestine,  then  Greek  Jews,  proselytes, 
and  Gentiles. 

The  Gospels  are  nothing  more  than  comprehensive  summaries 
of  this  apostolic  preaching  and  teaching.  Mark  represents  it 
in  its  simplest  and  briefest  form,  and  agrees  nearest  with  the 
preaching  of  Peter  as  far  as  we  know  it  from  the  Acts;  it 
is  the  oldest  in  essence,  though  not  necessarily  in  composi- 
tion. Matthew  and  Luke  contain  the  same  tradition  in  its  ex- 
panded and  more  matured  form,  the  one  the  Hebrew  or  Jewish 
Christian,  the  other  the  Hellenistic  and  Pauline  type,  with  a 
corresponding  selection  of  details.  Mark  gives  a graphic  account 
of  the  main  facts  of  the  public  life  of  Christ  “ beginning  from 
the  baptism  of  John  unto  the  day  that  he  was  received  up,”  as 
they  would  naturally  be  first  presented  to  an  audience  (Acts 
1 : 22).  Matthew  and  Luke  add  the  history  of  the  infancy  and 
many  discourses,  facts,  and  details  which  would  usually  be  pre^ 
sented  in  a fuller  course  of  instruction. 

Written  Documents. 

It  is  very  natural  that  parts  of  the  tradition  were  reduced  to 
writing  during  the  thirty  years  which  intervened  between  the 
events  and  the  composition  of  the  canonical  Gospels.  One 
evangelist  would  record  for  his  own  use  a sketch  of  the  chief 
events,  another  the  sermon  on  the  Mount,  another  the  parables, 
another  the  history  of  the  crucifixion  and  resurrection,  still 
another  would  gather  from  the  lips  of  Mary  the  history  of  the 
infancy  and  the  genealogies.  Possibly  some  of  the  first  hearers 
noted  down  certain  words  and  events  under  the  fresh  impres* 


§ 79.  THE  SYNOPTISTS. 


605 


sions  of  the  moment.  The  apostles  were  indeed  unlearned,  but 
not  illiterate  men,  they  could  read  and  write  and  had  sufficient 
rudimentary  education  for  ordinary  composition.  These  early 
memoranda  were  numerous,  but  have  all  disappeared,  they 
were  not  intended  for  publication,  or  if  published  they  were 
superseded  by  the  canonical  Gospels.  Hence  there  is  room 
here  for  much  speculation  and  conjectural  criticism.1  “ Many ,” 
says  Luke,  “ have  taken  in  hand  to  draw  up  a narrative  concern* 
ing  those  matters  which  have  been  fulfilled  among  us.” 8 lie 
cannot  mean  the  apocryphal  Gospels  which  were  not  yet  writ- 
ten, nor  the  canonical  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Mark  which 
would  have  spared  him  much  trouble  and  which  he  would  not 
have  dared  to  supersede  by  an  improved  work  of  his  own  with- 
out a word  of  acknowledgment,  but  pre-canonical  records,  now 
lost,  which  emanated  from  “ eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the 
word,”  yet  were  so  fragmentary  and  incomplete  as  to  justify  his 
own  attempt  to  furnish  a more  satisfactory  and  connected  his- 
tory. He  had  the  best  opportunity  to  gather  such  documents 
in  Palestine,  Antioch,  Greece,  and  Pome.  Matthew,  being  him- 
self an  eye-witness,  and  Mark,  being  the  companion  of  Peter, 
had  less  need  of  previous  documents,  and  could  rely  chiefly  on 
their  own  memory  and  the  living  tradition  in  its  primitive 
freshness.  They  may  have  written  sketches  or  memoranda  for 
their  own  use  long  before  they  completed  their  Gospels;  for  such 
important  works  cannot  be  prepared  without  long  continued 
labor  and  care.  The  best  books  grow  gradually  and  silently 
like  trees. 

Conclusion. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  the  Synoptists  prepared  their  Gos- 
pels independently,  during  the  same  period  (say  between  a.d. 
60  and  69),  in  different  places,  chiefly  from  the  living  teaching 

1 In  such  conjectures  Eichhorn,  Marsh,  Schleiermacher,  Ewald,  VoLkmar, 
Wittichen,  and  Renan  have  shown  great  ingenuity,  and  accumulated  a vast 
amount  of  docta  ignorantia. 

2 Luke  1:1:  i-irexeipria-av  (indicating  the  difficulty  of  the  undertaking 

and  probably  also  the  insufficiency  of  the  execution)  avara^aa^ai  Si^yrjaiy  tt epl 
ru>v  Twr\Tipo<popT)nei'(0V  eV  Tj/xiy  irpay/xaruv. 


606 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


of  Christ  and  the  first  disciples,  and  partly  from  earlier  frag- 
mentary documents.  They  bear  independent  testimony  to  the 
truth  of  the  gospel.  Their  agreement  and  disagreement  are 
not  the  result  of  design,  but  of  the  unity,  richness,  and  variety  of 
the  original  story  as  received,  understood,  digested;  and  applied 
by  different  minds  to  different  conditions  and  classes  of  hearers 
and  readers.1 

The  Traditional  Order. 

There  is  no  good  reason  to  doubt  that  the  canonical  arrange- 
ment which  is  supported  by  the  prevailing  oldest  tradition, 
correctly  represents  the  order  of  composition.2  Matthew,  the 

1 In  this  conclusion  (which  I stated  thirty  years  ago  in  the  first  edition  of 
my  Hist,  of  the  Ap.  Gh.)  some  of  the  ablest  investigators  of  the  Synoptic 
problem  independently  agree,  as  Lange,  Ebrard  ( Wissenschaftliche  Kritik  der 
ev.  Gesch.,  third  ed.,  pp.  1044  sqq.),  Norton,  Alford,  Godet,  Westcott,  Farrar. 
“ The  Synoptic  Gospels,”  says  Alford  (in  his  Proleg.  to  vol.  I.,  p.  11,  6th  ed.), 
“contain  the  substance  of  the  Apostles*  testimony,  collected  principally  from 
their  oral  teaching  current  in  the  church,  partly  also  from  written  documents 
embodying  portions  of  that  teaching:  there  is,  however,  no  reason,  from  their 
internal  structure,  to  believe,  but  every  reason  to  disbelieve  that  any  one  of 
the  three  evangelists  had  access  to  either  of  the  other  two  gospels  in  its  pres- 
ent form.”  Godet  concludes  his  discussion  {Com.  on  Luke , 2d  ed.,  p.  556,  Am. 
ed. ) with  these  words : “ It  is  impossible  to  conceive  anything  more  capricious 
and  less  reverential  than  the  part  which  we  make  the  author  of  any  one  what- 
ever of  our  Synoptic  Gospels  play  with  the  history  and  sayings  of  Jesus,  sup- 
posing that  he  had  before  him  the  other  two,  or  one  of  them.  Such  an 
explanation  will  only  be  allowable  when  we  are  brought  absolutely  to  despair 
of  finding  any  other.  And  even  then  it  were  better  still  to  say,  Non  liquet. 
For  this  explanation  involves  a moral  contradiction.  Most  of  our  present 
critics  are  so  well  aware  of  this  that  they  have  recourse  to  middle  terms.” 

2 Irenseus,  III.  1,  1;  Origen  in  Euseb. , H.  E.,  YI.  25;  Tertullian,  and 
others.  Irenaeus  gives  this  order  with  the  approximate  data:  “Matthew 
issued  a written  Gospel  among  the  Hebrews  in  their  own  dialect,  while  Peter 
and  Paul  were  preaching  at  Rome  and  laying  the  foundations  of  the  church. 
After  their  departure,  Mark,  the  disciple  and  interpreter  of  Peter,  did  also  hand 
down  to  us  in  writing  what  had  been  preached  by  Peter.  Luke  also,  the  com- 
panion of  Paul,  recorded  in  a book  the  gospel  preached  by  him.  Afterwards, 
John,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  who  also  had  leaned  upon  His  breast,  did  him- 
self publish  a Gospel  during  his  residence  at  Ephesus  in  Asia.”  Clement  of 
Alexandria  differs  by  putting  Mark  after  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  yet  before 
the  death  of  Peter  ; for  he  says  (in  Eus.,  H.  E.,  VI.  14),  that  when  Peter  pro- 
claimed the  gospel  at  Rome,  Mark  was  requested  by  the  hearers  to  reduce  it 
to  writing,  which  he  did,  Peter  neither  hindering  nor  encouraging  it.  Ac- 
cording to  this  view  all  the  Synoptists  would  have  written  before  64. 


§ 79.  TIIE  SYNOPTISTS. 


607 


apostle,  wrote  first  in  Aramaic  and  in  Palestine,  from  liis  per- 
sonal observation  and  experience  with  the  aid  of  tradition ; 
Mark  next,  in  Home,  faithfully  reproducing  Peter’s  preaching ; 
Luke  last,  from  tradition  and  sundry  reliable  but  fragmentary 
documents.  But  all  wrote  under  a higher  inspiration,  and  are 
equally  honest  and  equally  trustworthy ; all  wrote  within  the 
lifetime  of  many  of  the  primitive  witnesses,  before  the  first 
generation  of  Christians  had  passed  away,  and  before  there  was 
any  chance  for  mythical  and  legendary  accretions.  They  wrote 
not  too  late  to  insure  faithfulness,  nor  too  early  to  prevent  cor- 
ruption. They  represent  not  the  turbid  stream  of  apocryphal 
afterthoughts  and  fictions,  but  the  pure  fountain  of  historic  truth. 

The  gospel  story,  being  once  fixed  in  this  completed  shape, 
remained  unchanged  for  all  time  to  come.  L othing  was  lost, 
nothing  added.  The  earlier  sketches  or  pre-canonical  gospel 
fragments  disappeared,  and  the  four  canonical  records  of  the 
one  gospel,  no  more  nor  less,  sufficient  for  all  purposes,  monopo- 
lized the  field  from  which  neither  apocryphal  caricatures  nor 
sceptical  speculations  have  been  able  to  drive  them. 

Exoteric  and  Esoteric  Tradition. 

Besides  the  common  Galilaean  tradition  for  the  people  at 
large  which  is  embodied  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  there  was  an 
esoteric  tradition  of  Christ’s  ministry  in  Judaea  and  his  private 
relation  to  the  select  circle  of  the  apostles  and  his  mysterious 
relation  to  the  Father.  The  bearer  of  this  tradition  was  the 
beloved  disciple  who  leaned  on  the  beating  heart  of  his  Master 
and  absorbed  his  deepest  words.  He  treasured  them  up  in  his 
memory,  and  at  last  when  the  church  was  ripe  for  this  higher 
revelation  he  embodied  it  in  the  fourth  Gospel. 

Notes. 

The  problem  of  the  Relationship  op  the  Synoptists  was  first  seriously 
discussed  by  Augustin  (d.  430),  in  his  three  books  De  Consensu  Evan- 
gelistarum  [Opera,  Tom.  III.,  1041-1230,  ed.  Migne).  He  defends  the 
order  in  our  canon,  first  Matthew,  last  John,  and  the  two  apostolic  dis- 
ciples in  the  middle  {in  loco  medio  conslituti  lamquam  Jilii  amplectendi , 


608 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


1.,  2),  but  wrongly  makes  Mark  dependent  on  Matthew  (see  below, 
sub.  I.  1).  His  view  prevailed  during  the  middle  ages  and  down  to  the 
close  of  the  eighteenth  century.  The  verbal  inspiration  theory  checked 
critical  investigation. 

The  problem  was  resumed  with  Protestant  freedom  by  Store  (1786), 
more  elaborately  by  Eichhorn  (1794),  and  Marsh  (1803),  and  again  by 
Hug  (a  liberal  Roman  Catholic  scholar,  1808),  Schleiermacher  (1817), 
Gieseler  (1818),  De  Wette  (1826),  Credner  (1836),  and  others.  It  re- 
ceived a new  impulse  and  importance  by  the  Leben  Jesu  of  Strauss  (1836), 
and  the  Tubingen  school,  and  has  been  carried  forward  by  Baur  (1847), 
Hilgenfeld,  Bleek,  Reuss,  Holtzmann,  Ewald,  Meyer,  Keim,  Weiss,  and 
others  mentioned  in  the  Literature  (p.  577).  Starting  in  Germany,  the 
investigation  was  prosecuted  also  in  France,  Holland,  England,  and  the 
United  States. 

It  is  not  easy  to  find  a way  through  the  labyrinth  of  the  Synoptic 
question,  with  all  its  by-ways  and  cross-ways,  turns  and  windings,  which 
at  first  make  the  impression  : 

“ Mir  wird  von  alle  dem  so  dumrn , 

Ah  ging  mir  ein  Miihlrad  im  Kopf  her  urn.” 

Holtzmann  gives  a brief  history  of  opinions  (in  his  able  work,  Die 
Synopt.  Evang.)  down  to  1863,  and  Hilgenfeld  (Hist.  Krit.  Einl.  in  das 
JV.  T.f  pp.  173-210)  down  to  1874.  Comp,  also  Reuss  ( Gesch . der  heil. 
Schr.  W.  T.,  I.,  \\  165-198,  6th  ed.,  1887),  Holtzmann,  Einleitung,  351 
sqq.,  and  Weiss,  Einl.,  473  sqq.  The  following  classification  of  theories 
is  tolerably  complete,  but  several  overlap  each  other,  or  are  combined. 

I.  The  Inspiration  hypothesis  cuts  the  gordian  knot  by  tracing  the 
agreement  of  the  Synoptists  directly  and  solely  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  But 
this  explains  nothing,  and  makes  God  responsible  for  all  the  discrepan- 
cies and  possible  inaccuracies  of  the  Evangelists.  No  inspiration  theory 
can  stand  for  a moment  which  does  not  leave  room  for  the  personal 
agency  and  individual  peculiarities  of  the  sacred  authors  and  the  exer- 
cise of  their  natural  faculties  in  writing.  Luke  expressly  states  in  the 
preface  his  own  agency  in  composing  his  Gospel  and  the  use  he  made 
of  his  means  of  information. 

II.  The  Interdependency  hypothesis,  or  Borrowing  hypothesis 
(lfeniitzungshypothese)  holds  that  one  or  two  Evangelists  borrowed  from 
the  other.  This  admits  of  as  many  modifications  as  the  order  in  which 
they  may  be  placed. 

1.  Matthew , Mark , Luke.  This  is  the  traditional  order  defended  by 
Augustin,  who  called  Mark,  rather  disrespectfully,  a “footman  and 
abbreviator  of  Matthew  ” ( tamquam  pedissequus  et  breviator  Matthcei , 

11.,  3),  Grotius,  Mill,  Bengel,  Wetstein,  Hug  (1808),  Hilgenfeld,  Klos- 
termann,  Keil.  Among  English  writers  Townson  and  Greswell. 

Many  scholars  besides  those  just  mentioned  hold  to  this  order  without 


§ 79.  THE  SYNOPTISTS. 


609 


admitting  an  interdependence , and  this  I think  is  the  correct  view,  in  con- 
nection with  the  tradition  hypothesis.  See  below,  sub  Y.  and  the  text. 

2.  Matthew , Luke , Mark.  So  first  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Eus.,  H.  E., 
VI.  14),  but,  without  intimating  a dependence  of  Mark  except  on  Peter. 
Griesbach  (in  two  Programs,  1789)  renewed  this  order  and  made  Mark 
an  extract  from  both  Matthew  and  Luke.  So  Theile  (1825),  Fritzsche 
(1830),  Sieffert  (1832),  De  Wette,  Bleek,  Anger,  Strauss,  Baur,  Keim. 
The  Tubingen  school  utilized  this  order  for  the  tendency  theory  (see 
below).  Keim  puts  Matthew  a.d.  66,  Luke,  90,  Mark,  100. 

Bleek  is  the  most  considerate  advocate  of  this  order  ( Einleitung  in  das 
AT.  T.y  2d  ed.,  1866,  91  sqq.,  245  sqq.),  but  Mangold  changed  it  (in  the 
third  ed.  of  Bleek,  1875,  pp.  388  sqq.)  in  favor  of  the  priority  of  a proto- 
Mark. 

3.  Mark,  Matthew , Luke . The  originality  and  priority  of  Mark  was 
first  suggested  by  Koppe  (1782)  and  Storr  (1786  and  1794).  The  same 
view  was  renewed  by  Lachmann  (1835),  elaborately  carried  out  by  Weisse 
(1838, 1856  ; Hilgenfeld  calls  him  the  “ Urheher  der  conservativen  Markus- 
hypothese ”),  and  still  more  minutely  in  all  details  by  Wilke  ( Der  Urevan- 
gelist,  1838 ; but  he  assumes  numerous  interpolations  in  the  present 
Mark  and  goes  back  to  a proto-Mark),  and  by  B.  Weiss  (Das  Marcus- 
evangelium,  1872).  It  is  maintained  in  various  ways  by  Hitzig  (Johan- 
nes Markus , 1843),  Ewald  (1850,  but  with  various  prior  sources),  Ritschl 
(1851),  Reuss,  Thiersch,  Tobler,  Reville  (1862),  Eichthal  (1863),  Schen- 
kel,  Wittichen,  Holtzmann  (1863),  Weizsacker  (1864),  Scholten  (1869), 
Meyer  (Com.  on  Matt.,  6th  ed.,  1876,  p.  35),  Renan  ( Les  fivangiles,  1877, 
pp.  113,  but  the  Greek  Mark  was  preceded  by  the  lost  Hebrew  Matthew, 
p.  93  sqq.).  Among  English  writers,  James  Smith,  of  Jordan  Hill  ( Dis - 
sertat.  on  the  Origin  of  the  Gospels,  etc.,  Edinb.,  1853),  G.  P.  Fisher 
(Beginnings  of  Christianity , New  York,  1877,  p.  275),  and  E.  A.  Abbott  (in 
“Encyclop.  Brit.,”  vol.  X.,  1879,  art.  “Gospels”)  adopt  the  same  view. 

The  priority  of  Mark  is  now  the  prevailing  theory  among  German 
critics,  notwithstanding  the  protest  of  Baur  and  Keim,  who  had  almost 
a personal  animosity  against  the  second  Evangelist.  One  of  the  last 
utterances  of  Keim  was  a passionate  protest  against  the  Prdkonisation 
des  Markus  (Aus  dem  Urchristenthum , 1878,  pp.  28-45).  But  the  advo- 
cates of  this  theory  are  divided  on  the  question  whether  the  canonical 
Mark  or  a lost  proto-Mark  was  the  primitive  evangelist.  The  one  is 
called  the  Markushypotliese,  the  other  the  Urmarkushypothese.  We  admit 
the  originality  of  Mark,  but  this  does  not  necessarily  imply  priority  of 
composition.  Matthew  and  Luke  have  too  much  original  matter  to  be 
dependent  on  Mark,  and  are  far  more  valuable,  as  a whole,  though 
Mark  is  indispensable  for  particulars. 

4.  Mark , Luke , Matthew.  Herder  (1796),  Yolkmar  (1866  and  1870). 

5.  Luke , Matthew , Mark.  Biisching  (1776),  Evanson  (1792). 

6.  Luke,  Mark,  Matthew.  Vogel  (1804),  Schneckenburger  (1832). 


610 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


The  conflicting  variety  of  these  modifications  shakes  the  whole  bor- 
rowing theory.  It  makes  the  omissions  of  most  important  sections,  as 
Matt.,  chs.  12-17 ; 14  : 22-16  : 12 ; and  Luke,  chs.  10-18  : 14,  and  the 
discrepancies  in  the  common  sections  entirely  inexplicable.  See  text. 

III.  The  hypothesis  of  a Primitive  Gospel  ( Urevangelium ) written 
before  those  of  the  Synoptists  and  used  by  them  as  their  common  source, 
but  now  lost. 

1.  A lost  Hebrew  or  Syro-Chaldaic  Gospel  of  official  character,  written 
very  early,  about  35,  in  Palestine  by  the  apostles  as  a manual  for  the 
travelling  preachers.  This  is  the  famous  Urevangeliumshypotliese  of  the 
learned  Professor  Eichhom  (1794,  1804,  1820),  adopted  and  modified  by 
Bishop  Herbert  Marsh  (1803),  Gratz  (1809),  and  Bertholdt  (who,  as 
Baur  says,  was  devoted  to  it  with  “carnal  self-security”). 

But  there  is  no  trace  of  such  an  important  Gospel,  either  Hebrew  or 
Greek.  Luke  knows  nothing  about  it,  although  he  speaks  of  several 
attempts  to  write  portions  of  the  history.  To  carry  out  his  hypothesis, 
Eichhorn  was  forced  to  assume  four  altered  copies  or  recensions  of  the 
original  document,  and  afterwards  he  added  also  Greek  recensions. 
Marsh,  outgermanizing  the  German  critic,  increased  the  number  of  re- 
censions to  eight,  including  a Greek  translation  of  the  Hebrew  original. 
Thus  a new  recension  might  be  invented  for  every  new  set  of  facts  ad 
infinitum.  If  the  original  Gospel  was  an  apostolic  composition,  it  needed 
no  alterations  and  would  have  been  preserved  ; or  if  it  was  so  defective, 
it  was  of  small  account  and  unfit  to  be  used  as  a basis  of  the  canonical 
Gospels.  Eichhorn’s  hypothesis  is  now  generally  abandoned,  but  in 
modified  shape  it  has  been  renewed  by  Ewald  and  others.  See  below. 

2.  The  Gospel  “ according  to  the  Hebrews ,”  of  which  some  fragments 
still  remain.  Lessing  (1784,  in  a book  published  three  years  after  his 
death),  Sender  (who,  however,  changed  his  view  repeatedly),  Weber 
(1791),  Paulus  (1799).  But  this  was  a heretical  or  Ebionitic  corruption 
of  Matthew,  and  the  remaining  fragments  differ  widely  from  the  canoni- 
cal Gospels. 

3.  The  Hebrew  Matthew  ( Urmatthaus ).  It  is  supposed  in  this  case  that 
the  famous  Logia , which  Matthew  is  reported  by  Papias  to  have  written 
in  Hebrew,  consisted  not  only  of  a collection  of  discourses  of  our  Lord 
(as  Schleiermacher,  Ewald,  Reuss,  I.,  183,  explained  the  term),  but  also 
of  his  deeds : “ things  said  and  done.”  But  in  any  case  the  Hebrew 
Matthew  is  lost  and  cannot  form  a safe  basis  for  conclusions.  Hug  and 
Roberts  deny  that  it  ever  existed.  See  next  section. 

4.  The  canonical  Mark. 

5.  A pre-canonical  proto-Mark  ( Urmarkus ).  The  last  two  hypotheses 
have  already  been  mentioned  under  the  second  general  head  (II.  3). 

IY.  The  theory  of  a number  of  fragmentary  documents  (the  Diegesen - 
theoi'ie),  or  different  recensions.  It  is  based  on  the  remark  of  Luke  that 
“ many  have  taken  in  hand  to  draw  up  a narrative  (diTjyrjaiv)  concerning 


§ 79.  TIIE  SYNOPTISTS. 


611 


those  matters  which  have  been  fulfilled  among  us  ” (1  : 1).  Schleier- 
macher  (1817)  assumed  a largo  number  of  such  written  documents,  or 
detached  narratives,  and  dealt  very  freely  with  the  Synoptists,  resting 
his  faith  chiefiy  on  John. 

Ewald  (1850)  independently  carried  out  a similar  view  in  fierce  oppo- 
sition to  the  “ beastly  wildness  ” of  the  Tubingen  school.  He  informs 
us  with  his  usual  oracular  self-assurance  that  Philip,  the  evangelist 
(Acts,  ch.  8),  first  wrote  a historical  sketch  in  Hebrew,  and  then  Mat- 
thew a collection  of  discourses  (the  \6yia  of  Papias),  also  in  Hebrew,  of 
which  several  Greek  translations  were  made  ; that  Mark  was  the  third, 
Matthew  the  fifth,  and  Luke  the  ninth  in  this  series  of  Gospels,  repre- 
senting the  “ Hohebilder,  die  himmlische  Fortbewegung  der  Geschichte ,” 
which  at  last  assumed  their  most  perfect  shape  in  John. 

Kostlin,  Wittichen,  and  Scholten  likewise  assume  a number  of  pre- 
canonical  Gospels  which  exist  only  in  their  critical  fancy. 

Renan  ( Les  Evang .,  Introd.,  p.  vi.)  distinguishes  three  sets  of  Gos- 
pels: (1)  original  Gospels  of  the  first  hand,  taken  from  the  oral  tradi- 
tion without  a previous  written  text : the  Hebrew  Matthew  and  the 
Greek  proto-Mark;  (2)  Gospels  partly  original  and  partly  second- 
handed : our  canonical  Gospels  falsely  attributed  to  Matthew,  Mark, 
and  Luke ; (3)  Gospels  of  the  second  and  third  hand : Marcion’s  and 
the  Apocryphal  Gospels. 

V.  The  theory  of  a common  Oral  Tradition  ( Traditionshypothese ). 
Herder  (1796),  Gieseler  (who  first  fully  developed  it,  1818),  Schulz 
(1829),  Credner,  Lange,  Ebrard  (1868),  Thiersch  (1845,  1852),  Norton, 
Alford,  Westcott  (1860,  6th  ed.,  1881),  Godet  (1873),  Keil  (1877),  and 
others.  The  Gospel  story  by  constant  repetition  assumed  or  rather  had 
from  the  beginning  a uniform  shape,  even  in  minute  particulars,  espe- 
cially in  the  words  of  Christ.  True,  as  far  as  it  goes,  but  must  be  supple- 
mented, at  least  in  the  case  of  Luke,  by  pre-canonical,  fragmentary 
documents  or  memoranda  (8irjyr)aeis).  See  the  text. 

VI.  The  Tendency  hypothesis  ( Tendenzhypothese ),  or  the  theory  of 
Doctrinal  Adaptation.  Baur  (1847)  and  the  Tubingen  school  (Schwe- 
gler,  Ritschl,  Volkmar,  Hilgenfeld,  Kostlin),  followed  in  England  by 
Samuel  Davidson  (in  his  Introd.  to  the  New  Test.,  1868,  revised  ed.,  1882). 
Each  Evangelist  modified  the  Gospel  history  in  the  interest  of  the 
religious  school  or  party  to  which  he  belonged.  Matthew  represents 
the  Jewish  Christian,  Luke  the  Pauline  or  Gentile  Christian  tendency, 
Mark  obliterates  the  difference,  or  prepares  the  way  from  the  first  to  the 
second.  Every  individual  trait  or  characteristic  feature  of  a Gospel  is 
connected  with  the  dogmatic  antithesis  between  Petrinism  and  Paulinism. 
Baur  regarded  Matthew  as  relatively  the  most  primitive  and  credible 
Gospel,  but  it  is  itself  a free  reproduction  of  a still  older  Aramaic  Gos- 
pel “according  to  the  Hebrews.”  He  was  followed  by  an  Urluhas , a 
purely  Pauline  tendency  Gospel.  Mark  is  compiled  from  our  Matthew 


612 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


and  the  Urlukas  in  the  interest  of  neutrality.  Then  followed  the  pres- 
ent Luke  with  an  irenical  Catholic  tendency.  Baur  overstrained  the 
difference  between  Petrinism  and  Paulin  ism  far  beyond  the  limits  of 
historic  truth,  transformed  the  sacred  writers  into  a set  of  partisans  and 
fighting  theologians  after  modern  fashion,  set  aside  the  fourth  Gospel 
as  a purely  ideal  fiction,  and  put  all  the  Gospels  about  seventy  years  too 
far  down  (130-170),  when  they  were  already  generally  used  in  the  Chris- 
tian church — according  to  the  concurrent  testimonies  of  Justin  Martyr, 
Tatian,  Irenseus,  and  Tertullian.  Volkmar  went  even  beyond  Baur  in 
reckless  radicalism,  although  he  qualified  it  in  other  respects,  as  regards 
the  priority  of  Mark,  the  originality  of  Luke  (as  compared  with  Mar- 
cion),  and  the  date  of  Matthew  which  he  put  back  to  about  110.  See 
a summary  of  his  views  in  Hilgenfeld’s  Einleitung,  pp.  199-202.  But 
Ritscbl  and  Hilgenfeld  have  considerably  moderated  the  Tubingen  ex- 
travagancies. Ritschl  puts  Mark  first,  and  herein  Volkmar  agrees. 
Hilgenfeld  assigns  the  composition  of  Matthew  to  the  sixth  decade  of 
the  first  century  (though  he  thinks  it  was  somewhat  changed  soon  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem),  then  followed  Mark  and  paved  the  way 
from  Petrinism  to  Paulinism,  and  Luke  wrote  last  before  the  close  of 
the  first  century.  He  ably  maintained  his  theory  in  a five  years’  conflict 
with  the  Tubingen  master  (1850-1855)  and  reasserts  it  in  his  Einleitung 
(1875).  So  he  brings  us  back  to  the  traditional  order.  As  to  the  time 
of  composition,  the  internal  evidence  strongly  supports  the  historical 
tradition  that  the  Synoptists  wrote  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 


§ 80.  Matthew . 

Critical . 

Bernh.  Weiss  : Das  Matthausevangelium  und  seine  Lucas- Par allelen  er- 
klart.  Halle,  1876.  Exceedingly  elaborate. 

Edw.  Byron  Nicholson  : The  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews.  Its  Frag- 
ments translated  and  annotated.  Lond.,  1879. 


Exegetical. 

Commentaries  on  Matthew  by  Origen,  Jerome,  Chrysostom,  Melanch- 
thon  (1523),  Fritzsche,  De  Wette,  Alford,  Wordsworth,  Schegg 
(R.  Cath.,  1856-58,  3 vols.),  J.  A.  Alexander,  Lange  (trsl.  and 
enlarged  by  Schaff,  N.  Y.,  1864,  etc.),  James  Morison  (of  Glasgow, 
Lond.,  1870),  Meyer  (6th  ed.,  1876),  Wichelhaus  (Halle,  1876), 
Keil  (Leipz.,  1877),  Plumptre  (Lond.,  1878),  Carr  (Cambr.,  1879), 
Nicholson  (Lond.,  1881),  Schaff  (N.  Y , 1882). 


§ 80.  MATTHEW. 


613 


Life  of  Matthew. 

Matthew,1  formerly  called  Levi,  one  of  the  twelve  apostles, 
was  originally  a publican  or  taxgatherer 3 at  Capernaum,  and 
hence  well  acquainted  with  Greek  and  Hebrew  in  bilingual 
Galilee,  and  accustomed  to  keep  accounts.  This  occupation 
prepared  him  for  writing  a Gospel  in  topical  order  in  both  lan- 
guages. In  the  three  Synoptic  lists  of  the  apostles  he  is  asso- 
ciated with  Thomas,  and  forms  with  him  the  fourth  pair ; in 
Mark  and  Luke  he  precedes  Thomas,  in  his  own  Gospel  he  is 
placed  after  him  (perhaps  from  modesty).3  Hence  the  conject- 
ure that  he  was  a twin  brother  of  Thomas  (Didymus,  i.  e., 
Twin),  or  associated  with  him  in  work.  Thomas  was  an  honest 
and  earnest  doubter,  of  a melancholy  disposition,  yet  fully  con- 
vinced at  last  when  he  saw  the  risen  Lord ; Matthew  was  a 
strong  and  resolute  believer. 

Of  his  apostolic  labors  we  have  no  certain  information. 
Palestine,  Ethiopia,  Macedonia,  the  country  of  the  Euphrates, 
Persia,  and  Media  are  variously  assigned  to  him  as  missionary 
fields.  He  died  a natural  death  according  to  the  oldest  tradi- 
tion, while  later  accounts  make  him  a martyr.4 

1 Mafr&atos,  Matt.  9 : 9 (according  to  the  spelling  of  N B*  D,  adopted  by 

Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  Westcott  and  Hort),  or  Mar&atos  (as  spelled 
in  the  text,  rec .),  like  Matthias  and  Mattathias , means  Gift  of  Jehovah 
(njria,  rrcfi^  and  corresponds  to  the  Greek  Theodore.  He 

perhaps  took  this  name  after  his  call ; his  former  name  being  Levi,  Aeiur, 
A eveis  a joining),  according  to  Mark  2 : 12  ; Luke  5 : 27,  29.  The  new 

name  overshadowed  the  old,  as  the  names  of  Peter  and  Paul  replaced  Simon 
and  Saul.  The  identity  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  the  call  of  Matthew  or 
Levi  is  related  by  the  three  Synoptists  in  the  same  terms  and  followed  by  the 
same  discourse.  Nicholson  {Com.  on  Matt.  9 : 9)  disputes  the  identity,  as 
Grotius  and  Sieffert  did  before,  but  on  insufficient  grounds.  Mark  calls  Peter 
also  before  3 : 16  by  his  former  name  Simon  (1 : 16,  29,  30,  36),  and  thereby 
shows  his  historical  tact. 

2 Hence  called  Ma&bcuos  6 reKccurjs,  Matt.  10  : 3.  He  inserts  his  previous 
employment  to  intimate  the  power  of  divine  grace  in  his  conversion. 

3 Matt.  10  : 3,  compared  with  Mark  3 : 18 ; Luke  6 : 15.  But  in  the  list  in 
Acts  1 : 13  he  is  associated  with  Bartholomew,  and  Thomas  with  Philip. 

4 Clement  of  Alexandria  represents  him  as  a strict  Jewish  Christian  who 
abstained  from  the  use  of  flesh.  This  would  make  him  one  of  the  weak 


614 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


The  first  Gospel  is  his  imperishable  work,  well  worthy  a long 
life,  yea  many  lives.  Matthew  the  publican  occupies  as  to  time 
the  first  place  in  the  order  of  the  Evangelists,  as  Mary  Magda- 
lene, from  whom  Christ  expelled  many  demons,  first  proclaimed 
the  glad  tidings  of  the  resurrection.  Not  that  it  is  on  that  ac- 
count the  best  or  most  important — the  best  comes  last, — but  it 
naturally  precedes  the  other,  as  the  basis  precedes  the  super- 
structure.1 

In  his  written  Gospel  he  still  fulfils  the  great  commission  to 
bring  all  nations  to  the  school  of  Christ  (28 : 19). 

The  scanty  information  of  the  person  and  life  of  Matthew  in 
connection  with  his  Gospel  suggests  the  following  probable 
inferences : 

1.  Matthew  was  a Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews,  yet  comparatively 
liberal,  being  a publican  who  came  in  frequent  contact  with 
merchants  from  Damascus.  This  occupation  was  indeed  dis- 
reputable in  the  eyes  of  the  Jews,  and  scarcely  consistent  with 
the  national  Messianic  aspirations ; but  Capernaum  belonged  to 
the  tetrarchy  of  Herod  Antipas,  and  the  Herodian  family, 
which,  with  all  its  subserviency  to  heathen  Home,  was  yet  to  a 
certain  extent  identified  with  the  Jewish  nation. 

2.  He  was  a man  of  some  means  and  good  social  position. 
His  office  was  lucrative,  he  owned  a house,  and  gave  a farewell 
banquet  to  “ a great  multitude  ” of  his  old  associates,  at  which 
Jesus  presided.2  It  was  at  the  same  time  his  farewell  to  the 
world,  its  wealth,  its  pleasures  and  honors.  “¥e  may  conceive 

brethren  whom  Paul  (Rom.  14  : 1 sqq.)  charitably  judges.  But  there  is  noth- 
ing in  the  first  Gospel  to  justify  this  tradition. 

1 The  priority  and  relative  superiority  of  Matthew  are  maintained  not  only  by 
Augustin  and  the  catholic  tradition,  but  also  by  moderately  liberal  critics  from 
Griesbach  to  Bleek,  and  even  by  the  radical  critics  of  the  Tubingen  school 
(Baur,  Strauss,  Schwegler,  Zeller,  Hilgenfeld,  Davidson),  and  especially  by 
Keim. 

2 So  Luke  5 : 29.  Mark  2 : 15  (“  many  publicans  and  sinners  sat  down  with 
Jesus  and  his  disciples”)  and  Matt.  9 : 10  (“many  publicans  and  sinners”) 
agtee  ; but  Matthew  modestly  omits  his  own  name  in  connection  with  that 
feast.  Some  commentators  understand  “the  house ” to  be  the  house  of  Jesus, 
but  Jesus  had  no  house  and  gave  no  dinner  parties.  Luke  says  expressly  that 
it  was  the  house  of  Levi. 


§ 80.  MATTHEW. 


615 


what  a joyous  banquet  that  was  for  Matthew,  when  he  marked 
the  words  and  acts  of  Jesus,  and  stored  within  his  memory  the 
scene  and  the  conversation  which  he  was  inspired  to  write  ac- 
cording to  his  clerkly  ability  for  the  instruction  of  the  church  in 
all  after  ages.”  1 It  was  on  that  occasion  that  Jesus  spoke  that 
word  which  was  especially  applicable  to  Matthew  and  especially 
offensive  to  the  Pharisees  present:  “I  came  not  to  call  the 
righteous,  but  sinners.”  It  is  remarkable  that  the  first  post- 
apostolic  quotation  from  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  is  this  very 
passage,  and  one  similar  to  it  (see  below). 

3.  lie  was  a man  of  decision  of  character  and  capable  of 
great  sacrifice  to  his  conviction.  When  called,  while  sitting  in 
Oriental  fashion  at  his  toll-booth,  to  follow  Jesus,  he  “ forsook 
all,  rose  up,  and  followed  Ilim,”  whom  he  at  once  recognized 
and  trusted  as  the  true  king  of  Israel.2  X o one  can  do  more 
than  leave  his  “ all,”  no  matter  how  much  or  how  little  this  may 
be ; and  no  one  can  do  better  than  to  “ follow  Christ.” 

Character  and  Aim  of  the  Gospel. 

The  first  Gospel  makes  the  impression  of  primitive  antiquity. 
The  city  of  Jerusalem,  the  temple,  the  priesthood  and  sacrifices, 
the  entire  religious  and  political  fabric  of  Judaism  are  supposed 
to  be  still  standing,  but  with  an  intimation  of  their  speedy  down- 
fall.3 It  alone  reports  the  words  of  Christ  that  he  came  not  to 
destroy  but  to  fulfil  the  lawT  and  the  prophets,  and  that  he  was 
only  sent  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel.4  Hence  the 
best  critics  put  the  composition  several  years  before  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem.5 

1 Carr,  Com.,  p.  6.  5 Luke  5 : 28  ; Mark  2 : 14  ; Matt.  9 : 9. 

3 Ch.  5 : 35  (“  Jerusalem  is  the  city  of  the  great  king”) ; 23  : 1 (u  sit  on 
Moses’  seat”) ; 23  : 10  (“  swear  by  the  temple”) ; 16  : 28;  24  : 15  (“  in  the 
holy  place;”  “let  him  that  readeth  understand”),  and  the  whole  twenty- 
fourth  chapter. 

4 5 : 17  ; 15:24;  comp.  10:0. 

5 Hug,  Bleek,  Olshausen.  Ebrard.  Meyer,  Keim,  Lange,  and  most  com- 
mentators fix  the  date  between  00  and  69,  other  writers  as  early  as  37-45  (but 
in  conflict  with  ch.  27  : 8 ; 28  : 15).  Baur’s  view,  which  brings  the  Greek 
Matthew  down  to  the  second  destruction  of  Jerusalem  under  Hadrian,  130- 


616 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Matthew’s  Gospel  was  evidently  written  for  Hebrews  and 
Hebrew  Christians  with  the  aim  to  prove  that  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth is  the  promised  Messiah,  the  last  and  greatest  prophet, 
priest,  and  king  of  Israel.  It  presupposes  a knowledge  of  Jewish 
customs  and  Palestinian  localities  (which  are  explained  in  other 
Gospels).1  It  is  the  connecting  link  between  the  Old  and  the 
New  Covenant.  It  is,  as  has  been  well  said,2  “ the  ultimatum 
of  Jehovah  to  his  ancient  people:  Believe,  or  prepare  to  per- 
ish ! Recognize  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  or  await  Him  as  your 
Judge  ! ” Hence  he  so  often  points  out  the  fulfilment  of  Mes- 
sianic prophecy  in  the  evangelical  history  wfith  his  peculiar  for- 
mula : “ that  it  might  be  fulfilled,”  or  “ then  was  fulfilled.” 3 

In  accordance  with  this  plan,  Matthew  begins  with  the  gene- 
alogy of  Jesus,  showing  him  to  be  the  son  and  heir  of  David 
the  king,  and  of  Abraham  the  father,  of  the  Jewish  race,  to 
whom  the  promises  were  given.  The  wise  men  of  the  East 
come  from  a distance  to  adore  the  new-born  king  of  the  Jews. 
The  dark  suspicion  and  jealousy  of  Herod  is  roused,  and  fore- 
shadows the  future  persecution  of  the  Messiah.  The  flight  to 
Egypt  and  the  return  from  that  land  both  of  refuge  and  bond- 
age are  a fulfilment  of  the  typical  history  of  Israel.  John  the 

134,  is  exploded.  Even  Yolkmar  puts  it  much  earlier  (105  to  115),  Hilgen- 
feld  ( Einleitung  in  das  N.  T.,  p.  497)  immediately  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  Keim  a.d.  66.  Dr.  Samuel  Davidson,  in  the  second  ed.  of  his 
lntrod.  to  the  N.  T.  (London,  1882,  vol.  I.  413-416),  assigns  the  present  Greek 
Matthew  with  Volkmar  to  105,  but  assumes  an  Aramasan  original  and  Greek 
paraphrases  of  the  same  which  were  written  before  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem. He  thinks  that  “the  eschatological  discourses  which  connect  the  fall 
of  Jerusalem,  the  destruction  of  the  temple  and  the  end  of  the  world,  have 
been  falsified  by  history  ” (?) ; that  consequently  Jesus  did  not  utter  them  as 
they  are  recorded,  but  they  were  revised  and  altered  by  writers  who  incor- 
porated with  them  Jewish  ideas  and  expressions  (I.  403). 

1 Comp.  Matt.  15  : 2 with  Mark  7 : 3,  4.  The  translation  of  the  exclama- 
tion on  the  cross,  Matt.  27  : 46,  is  intended  for  Greek  Jews. 

2 By  Godet,  Studies  on  the  New  Testament , p.  23. 

3 'iva  (or  ottcos)  irAripw&fj  rb  prj&ev,  or  r6re  eirATipajfrr]  rb  firj&ey.  This  formula 
occurs  twelve  times  in  Matthew  (1  : 22  ; 2 : 15,  17,  23  ; 4 : 14  ; 8 : 17  ; 12:17; 
13  : 35  ; 21  : 4 ; 26  : 56  ; 27  : 9,  35),  six  times  in  John,  but  nowhere  in  Luke 
por  in  Mark ; for  Mark  15  : 28  (/cal  iirA rjpto&r]  rj  ypcupi),  k.  t.  A.)  in  the  text,  rea 
is  spurious  and  probably  inserted  from  Luke  22  : 37. 


§ 80.  MATTHEW. 


C17 


Baptist  completes  the  mission  of  prophecy  in  preparing  the  waj 
for  Christ.  After  the  Messianic  inauguration  and  trial  Jesus 
opens  his  public  ministry  with  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  which 
is  the  counterpart  of  the  Sinaitic  legislation,  and  contains  the 
fundamental  law  of  his  kingdom.  The  key-note  of  this  sermon 
and  of  the  whole  Gospel  is  that  Christ  came  to  fulfil  the  law 
and  the  prophets,  which  implies  both  the  harmony  of  the  two 
religions  and  the  transcendent  superiority  of  Christianity.  Ilis 
mission  assumes  an  organized  institutional  form  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  which  he  came  to  establish  in  the  world.  Matthew 
uses  this  term  ( rj  ftaaikeia  t cov  ovpa  vtov)  no  less  than  thirty- 
two  times,  while  the  other  Evangelists  and  Paul  speak  of  the 
“ kingdom  of  God  ” (r)  /3aai\€ta  r ov  & e o v).  Eo  other  Evan- 
gelist has  so  fully  developed  the  idea  that  Christ  and  his  king- 
dom are  the  fulfilment  of  all  the  hopes  and  aspirations  of  Israel, 
and  so  vividly  set  forth  the  awful  solemnity  of  the  crisis  at  this 
turning  point  in  its  history. 

But  while  Matthew  wrote  from  the  Jewish  Christian  point  of 
view,  he  is  far  from  being  Judaizing  or  contracted.  lie  takes 
the  widest  range  of  prophecy.  He  is  the  most  national  and  yet 
the  most  universal,  the  most  retrospective  and  yet  the  most 
prospective,  of  Evangelists.  At  the  very  cradle  of  the  infant 
Jesus  he  introduces  the  adoring  Magi  from  the  far  East, 
as  the  forerunners  of  a multitude  of  believing  Gentiles  who 
“ shall  come  from  the  east  and  the  west,  and  shall  sit  down  with 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven ; ” while 
“ the  sons  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  cast  forth  into  the  outer 
darkness.”  The  heathen  centurion,  and  the  heathen  woman  of 
Canaan  exhibit  a faith  the  like  of  which  Jesus  did  not  find  in 
Israel.  The  Messiah  is  rejected  and  persecuted  by  his  own  peo- 
ple in  Galilee  and  Judaea.  He  upbraids  Chorazin,  Bethsaida, 
and  Capernaum,  wherein  his  mighty  works  were  done,  because 
they  repented  not ; He  sheds  tears  over  Jerusalem  because  she 
would  not  come  to  Him ; He  pronounces  his  woe  over  the 
Jewish  hierarchy,  and  utters  the  fearful  prophecies  of  the  de- 
struction of  the  theocracy.  All  this  is  most  fully  recorded  by 


618 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Matthew,  and  lie  most  appropriately  and  sublimely  concludes 
with  the  command  of  the  universal  evangelization  of  all  na- 
tions, and  the  promise  of  the  unbroken  presence  of  Christ  with 
his  people  to  the  end  of  the  world.1 

Topical  Arrangement. 

The  mode  of  arrangement  is  clear  and  orderly.  It  is  topical 
rather  than  chronological.  It  far  surpasses  Mark  and  Luke  in 
the  fulness  of  the  discourses  of  Christ,  while  it  has  to  be  supple- 
mented from  them  in  regard  to  the  succession  of  events.  Mat- 
thew groups  together  the  kindred  words  and  works  with  special 
reference  to  Christ’s  teaching ; hence  it  was  properly  called  by 
Papias  a collection  of  the  Oracles  of  the  Lord.  It  is  emphati- 
cally the  didactic  Gospel. 

The  first  didactic  group  is  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  of  Beati- 
tudes, which  contains  the  legislation  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
and  an  invitation  to  the  whole  people  to  enter,  holding  out  the 
richest  promises  to  the  poor  in  spirit  and  the  pure  in  heart 
(chs.  5-7).  The  second  group  is  the  instruction  to  the  disciples 
in  their  missionary  work  (ch.  10).  The  third  is  the  collection 
of  the  parables  on  the  kingdom  of  God,  illustrating  its  growth, 
conflict,  value,  and  consummation  (ch.  13).  The  fourth,  the 
denunciation  of  the  Pharisees  (ch.  23),  and  the  fifth,  the  pro- 
phecy of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  end  of  the  world 
(chs.  24  and  25). 

Between  these  chief  groups  are  inserted  smaller  discourses  of 
Christ,  on  his  relation  to  John  the  Baptist  (11 : 1-19) ; the  woe 
on  the  unrepenting  cities  of  Galilee  (11:20-24);  the  thanks- 
giving for  the  revelation  to  those  of  a childlike  spirit  (11 : 25- 
27);  the  invitation  to  the  weary  and  heavy  laden  (11 : 28-30) ; 
on  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  and  warning  to  the  Pharisees 
who  were  on  the  way  to  commit  the  unpardonable  sin  by  tracing 
his  miracles  to  Satanic  powers  (ch.  12) ; the  attack  on  the  tradi- 
tions of  the  elders  and  the  hypocrisy  of  the  Pharisees  (chs.  15 

1 Comp.  ch.  2 : 1-12 ; 8 : 11,  12 ; 11  : 21  ; 12  : 41 ; 15  : 21-28;  ch.  23  and 
24;  28  : 19,  20. 


§ 80.  MATTHEW. 


619 


and  16);  the  prophecy  of  the  founding  of  the  church  after  the 
great  confession  of  Peter,  with  the  prediction  of  his  passion  as 
the  way  to  victory  (ch.  16) ; the  discourse  on  the  little  children 
with  their  lesson  of  simplicity  and  humility  against  the  tempta- 
tions of  hierarchial  pride  ; the  duty  of  forgiveness  in  the  king- 
dom and  the  parable  of  the  unforgiving  servant  (ch.  18) ; the 
discourse  about  divorce,  against  the  Pharisees  ; the  blessing  of 
little  children ; the  warning  against  the  danger  of  riches ; the 
parable  of  the  Laborers  in  the  Vineyard  and  the  nature  of 
the  future  rewards  (chs.  19  and  20) ; the  victorious  replies  of 
the  Lord  to  the  tempting  questions  of  the  Pharisees  and  Sad- 
ducees  (ch.  22). 

These  discourses  are  connected  with  narratives  of  the  great 
miracles  of  Christ  and  the  events  in  his  life.  The  miracles  are 
likewise  grouped  together  (as  in  chs.  8 and  9),  or  briefly  summed 
up  (as  in  4 : 23-25).  The  transfiguration  (ch.  17)  forms  the 
turning-point  between  the  active  and  the  passive  life ; it  was  a 
manifestation  of  heaven  on  earth,  an  anticipation  of  Christ’s 
future  glory,  a pledge  of  the  resurrection,  and  it  fortified  Jesus 
and  his  three  chosen  disciples  for  the  coming  crisis,  which 
culminated  in  the  crucifixion  and  ended  in  the  resurrection.1 * * * * 6 


Peculiar  Sections. 

Matthew  has  a number  of  original  sections  : 

1 . Ten  Discourses  of  our  Lord,  namely,  the  greater  part  of 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (ch.  5-7) ; the  thanksgiving  for  the 


1 For  a full  analysis  see  the  critical  monograph  of  Weiss,  and  Lange’s 

Matth.,  pp.  43-46.  Keim,  who  builds  his  Qeschichte  Jesu — the  ablest  and 

least  objectionable  of  the  purely  critical  biographies  of  Christ — chiefly  on 
Matthew,  praises  its  plan  as  sorgfdltig,  einfach  und  einleuchtend , durchsichtig 

und  sehr  woTil  durchgefuhrt  (I.  52).  He  divides  it  into  two  chief  sections : 
the  entry  upon  the  public  ministry  with  the  Bussrvf  and  Reichspredigt  (4:17: 

air b t6t€  tfpZaro  5 Tijtrovs  Kr\pva<reiv,  k.  t.  A.),  and  the  entry  upon  the  path  of 
death  with  the  Leidensruf  and  the  Zukunftspredigt  (16  : 21  : &irfc  t6tc 

6 Ti7<r.,  k.  t.  A.).  He  also  finds  an  ingenious  symmetry  of  numbers  in  the  col- 
location of  10  miracles,  8 [7]  beatitudes,  7 woes,  4 and  3 parables,  3 tempta- 
tions, etc. 


620 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


revelation  to  babes  (11  : 25-27);  the  touching  invitation  to  the 
heavy  laden  (11  : 28-30),  which  is  equal  to  anything  in  John* 
the  warning  against  idle  words  (12  : 36,  37) ; the  blessing  pro- 
nounced upon  Peter  and  the  prophecy  of  founding  the  church 
(16  : 17-19) ; the  greater  part  of  the  discourse  on  humility  and 
forgiveness  (ch.  18) ; the  rejection  of  the  Jews  (21  : 43) ; the 
denunciation  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  (ch.  23) ; the  descrip- 
tion of  the  final  judgment  (25  : 31-46) ; the  great  commission 
and  the  promise  of  Christ’s  presence  to  the  end  of  time 
(28  : 18-20). 

2.  Ten  Parables : the  tares ; the  hidden  treasure ; the  pearl 
of  great  price ; the  draw-net  (13  : 24-50) ; the  unmerciful  ser- 
vant (18  : 23-35);  the  laborers  in  the  vineyard  (20  : 1-16);  the 
two  sons  (21  : 28-32) ; the  marriage  of  the  king’s  son  (22  : 1-14) ; 
the  ten  virgins  (25  : 1-13) ; the  talents  (25  : 14-30). 

3.  Two  Miracles : the  cure  of  two  blind  men  (9  : 27-31) ; the 
stater  in  the  fish’s  mouth  (17  : 2L-27). 

4.  Facts  and  Incidents : the  adoration  of  the  Magi ; the  mas- 
sacre of  the  innocents ; the  flight  into  Egypt ; the  return  from 
Egypt  to  Nazareth  (all  in  ch.  2) ; the  coming  of  the  Pharisees 
and  Sadducees  to  John’s  baptism  (3:7);  Peter’s  attempt  to 
walk  on  the  sea  (14 : 28-31) ; the  payment  of  the  temple  tax 
(17  : 24-27);  the  bargain  of  Judas,  his  remorse,  and  suicide 
(26  : 14-16  ; 27  : 3—10) ; the  dream  of  Pilate’s  wife  (27  : 19) ; 
the  appearance  of  departed  saints  in  Jerusalem  (27 : 52) ; the 
watch  at  the  sepulchre  (27 : 62-66) ; the  lie  of  the  Sanhedrin 
and  the  bribing  of  the  soldiers  (28  : 11-15) ; the  earthquake  on 
the  resurrection  morning  (28  : 2,  a repetition  of  the  shock  de- 
scribed in  27 : 51,  and  connected  with  the  rolling  away  of  the 
stone  from  the  sepulchre). 

The  Style. 

The  style  of  Matthew  is  simple,  unadorned,  calm,  dignified, 
even  majestic ; less  vivid  and  picturesque  than  that  of  Mark ; 
more  even  and  uniform  than  Luke’s,  because  not  dependent  on 


§ 80.  MATTHEW. 


621 


written  sources.  He  is  Hebraizing,  but  less  so  than  Mark,  and 
not  so  much  as  Luke  in  his  first  two  chapters.  He  omits  some 
minor  details  which  escaped  his  observation,  but  which  Mark 
heard  from  Peter,  and  which  Luke  learned  from  eve-witnesses 
or  found  in  his  fragmentary  documents.  Among  his  peculiar 
expressions,  besides  the  constant  use  of  “ kingdom  of  heaven ,” 
is  the  designation  of  God  as  “our  heavenly  Father,”  and  of 
Jerusalem  as  “ the  holy  city  ” and  “ the  city  of  the  Great  King.” 
In  the  fulness  of  the  teaching  of  Christ  he  surpasses  all  except 
John.  Nothing  can  be  more  solemn  and  impressive  than  his 
reports  of  those  words  of  life  and  power,  which  will  outlast 
heaven  and  earth  (24  : 34).  Sentence  follows  sentence  with 
overwhelming  force,  like  a succession  of  lightning  flashes  from 
the  upper  world.1 

Patristic  Notices  of  Matthew. 

The  first  Gospel  was  well  known  to  the  author  of  the 
“ Didache  of  the  Apostles,”  who  wrote  between  80  and  100,  and 
made  large  use  of  it,  especially  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.2 

The  next  clear  allusion  to  this  Gospel  is  made  in  the  Epistle 
of  Barnabas,  who  quotes  two  passages  from  the  Greek  Matthew, 
one  from  ch.  22  : 14:  “Many  are  called,  but  few  chosen,”  with 
the  significant  formula  used  only  of  inspired  writings  • “ It  is 
written.”  3 This  shows  clearly  that  earl y in  the  second  century, 
if  not  before,  it  was  an  acknowledged  authority  in  the  church. 
The  Gospel  of  John  also  indirectly  presupposes,  by  its  numerous 
omissions,  the  existence  of  all  the  Synoptical  Gospels. 

1 For  particulars  on  the  style  of  Matthew  and  the  other  Evangelists  see  my 
Companion  to  the  Study  of  the  Greek  Testament  (third  ed.,  1888),  pp.  48  sqq. 

2 See  my  book  on  the  Didache  (N.  York,  third  ed.,  1889),  pp.  Gl-88. 

3 Ep.  Barn. , c.  4,  at  the  close  : Trpo(rex0l3lJLei'y  us  ycypairrai,  voWol 

o\tyoi  5e  1k\(-kto\  evpe&u/jiev.  Since  the  discovery  of  the  entire  Greek 
text  of  this  Epistle  in  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  (1859),  where  it  follows  the  Apoc- 
alypse, there  can  be  no  doubt  any  more  about  the  formula  yeypaTTcu  {scrip- 
turn  est).  The  other  passage  quoted  in  ch.  5 is  from  Matt.  9:13:  ovk  TjA&ev 
Ka\ccrcu  tiiicaiovs  aWh  a/xapruKovs.  The  Ep.  of  Barnabas  dates  from  the  close 
of  the  first  or  the  beginning  of  the  second  century.  Some  place  it  as  early  as 
a.d.  70,  others  as  late  as  120.  The  Didache  is  older. 


622 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


The  Hebrew  Matthew. 

Next  we  hear  of  a Hebrew  Matthew  from  Papias,  bishop  of 
Hierapolis,  “ a hearer  of  John  and  a companion  of  Polycarp.”  1 2 
He  collected  from  apostles  and  their  disciples  a variety  of  apos- 
tolic traditions  in  his  “ Exposition  of  Oracles  of  the  Lord,”  in 
five  books  ( Xoylcov  icvpicuccov  ef^y^crt?).  In  a fragment  of  this 
lost  work  preserved  by  Eusebius,  he  says  distinctly  that  “ Mat- 
thew composed  the  oracles  [of  the  Lord]  in  the  Hebrew  tongue, 
and  everyone  interpreted  them  as  best  he  could.” 3 

Unfortunately  the  Hebrew  Matthew,  if  it  ever  existed,  has 
disappeared,  and  consequently  there  is  much  difference  of  opin- 
ion about  this  famous  passage,  both  as  regards  the  proper  mean- 
ing of  “ oracles  ” (\6yia)  and  the  truth  of  the  whole  report. 

1.  The  “ oracles  ” are  understood  by  some  to  mean  only  the 
discourses  of  our^Lord ; 3 by  others  to  include  also  the  narrative 

1 Euseb. , H.  E. , III.  39  : ’\<advvov  fikp  clkovcttis , IIoXvicdpTrov  5f  kratpos 
yeyovds.  Whether  this  “John”  is  the  apostle  or  the  mysterious  “ Presbyter 
John,”  is  a matter  of  dispute  which  will  be  discussed  in  the  second  volume  in 
the  section  on  Papias.  Eusebius  himself  clearly  distinguishes  two  Johns.  The 
date  of  Papias  must  be  set  back  several  years  with  that  of  Polycarp,  his 
*•  companion,”  who  suffered  martyrdom  in  155  (not  164).  The  Chronicon 
Paschale  which  represents  Papias  as  martyred  at  Pergamum  about  the  same 
time,  mistook  nAnTAOS  in  Eusebius,  II.  E.,  IV.  15  (at  the  close),  for  nAIHAS. 
See  Lightfoot,  “Contemp.  Review”  for  August,  1875,  p.  381  sqq. 

2 Eus.,  Hist.  Eccl. , III.  39  : Mar&a?os  plv  ovv  'EftpatSi  dia\€KT(p  Tck  \6yta 
trvveTd^aro  (or,  according  to  the  reading  of  Heinichen,  I.  150,  (rvi/eypaif/aro), 
i]piu‘fiv€v(r€  5’  avra  ws  9j v Suvar bs  eKcurros.  This  testimony  has  been  thoroughly 
discussed  by  Schleiermacher  (in  the  “ Studien  und  Kritiken,”  1832),  Holtz- 
raann  ( Synopt . Evang. , 248  sqq.),  Weizsacker  ( Untersuchungen  ub.  d.  ev. 
Gesch.,  27  sqq.),  Ewald  (Jahrbucher,  VI.,  55  sqq.),  Zahn  (in  “Stud.  u. 
Kritiken,”  1866,  649  sqq.),  Steitz  (ibid.,  1868,  63  sqq.),  Keim  (Gesch.  Jesu  v. 
Naz .,  I.,  56  sqq.),  Meyer  (Com.  Evang.  Matth.,  6th  ed.  (1876),  4 sqq.),  Light- 
foot  (in  “Contemp.  Review”  for  August,  1875,  pp.  396-403),  and  Weiss 
(Has  Matthdusevang.,  1876,  1 sqq.). 

3 So  Schleiermacher  who  first  critically  examined  this  passage  (1832), 
Schneckenburger  (1834),  Lachmann  (1835),  Credner,  Wieseler.  Ewald,  Reuss, 
Weizsacker,  Holtzmann,  Meyer  (p.  11).  It  is  supposed  that  Matthew’s  Hebrew 
Gospel  was  similar  to  the  lost  work  of  Papias,  with  this  difference  that  the 
former  was  simply  a collection  (avvra^is  or  au'vyocMpr)),  the  latter  an  interpreta- 
tion (i£i\yT}(Tis),  of  the  Lord’s  discourses.  6r<J«/  ^oytcou  nvpiaKwv). 


§ 80.  MATTHEW. 


623 


portions.1  But  in  any  case  the  Hebrew  Matthew  must  have 
been  chiefly  an  orderly  collection  of  discourses.  This  agrees  best 
with  the  natural  and  usual  meaning  of  Logia , and  the  actual  pre- 
ponderance of  the  doctrinal  element  in  our  canonical  Matthew, 
as  compared  with  our  Mark.  A jrjarte  potiori  fit  denominatio. 

2.  The  report  of  a Hebrew  original  has  been  set  aside- 
altogether  as  a sheer  mistake  of  Papias,  who  confounded  it 
with  the  Ebionite  “ Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,”  known 
to  us  from  a number  of  fragments.9  It  is  said  that  Papias  was 
a credulous  and  weak-minded,  though  pious  man.3  But  this  does 
not  impair  his  veracity  or  invalidate  a simple  historical  notice. 
It  is  also  said  that  the  universal  spread  of  the  Greek  language 
made  a Hebrew  Gospel  superfluous.  But  the  Aramaic  was  still 
the  vernacular  and  prevailing  language  in  Palestine  (comp. 
Acts  21 : 40  ; 22  : 2)  and  in  the  countries  of  the  Euphrates. 

There  is  an  intrinsic  probability  of  a Hebrew  Gospel  for  the 

1 So  Liicke  (1833),  Kern,  Hug,  Harless,  Anger,  Bleek,  Baur,  Hilgenfeld, 
Lange,  Ebrard,  Thiersch,  Keim,  Zahn,  Lightfoot,  Thomson,  Keil,  Weiss  (but  the 
last  with  a limitation  to  a meagre  thread  of  narrative!.  The  chief  arguments 
are  : 1,  that  all  early  writers,  from  Irengeus  onward,  who  speak  of  a Hebrew 
Matthew  mean  a regular  Gospel  corresponding  to  our  Greek  Matthew  ; 2,  the 
parallel  passage  of  Papias  concerning  the  Gospel  of  Mark  (Eus.,  III.  39),  where 
apparently  “the  Lord’s  discourses”  (\6yoi  Kvpiaxol ) includes  actions  as  well  as 
words,  ra  virb  to v Xpio-rou  f)  Aex&eVra  fl  irpax&evTa.  But  it  is  said,  somewhat  dis- 
paragingly, that  Mark  (as  compared  with  Matthew)  did  not  give  “ an  orderly 
arrangement  of  the  Lord’s  words  ” (ou%  Sxnrep  dvra^iv  rwv  Kvpiaxuv  iroiov/j.evos 
\6yoov).  The  wider  meaning  of  \6yia  is  supported  by  Rom.  3:1,  where  t& 
\6yia  rod  freoO,  with  which  the  Jews  were  intrusted,  includes  the  whole  Old 
Testament  Scriptures ; and  Hebr.  5 : 12,  “ the  first  principles  of  the  oracles  of 
God”  (tcc  (Trotxeta  tt}*  a pxv$  r&v  Ao*y( osv  tov  &eov).  Lightfoot  quotes  also  pas- 
sages from  Philo,  Clement  of  Rome,  Polycarp,  and  Origen  (l.  c.,  p.  400  sq.). 

2 So  Wetstein,  Hug,  De  Wette,  Bleek,  Ewald,  Ritschl,  Holtzmann,  Keim, 
Delitzsch,  Keil.  Some  of  these  writers  assume  that  the  Gospel  according  to 
the  Hebrews  was  an  Ebionite  translation  and  recension  of  the  Greek  Matthew. 
So  Delitzsch  and  Keil  ( Com. , p.  23).  Keim  is  mistaken  when  he  asserts  (I.  54) 
that  scarcely  anybody  nowadays  believes  in  a Hebrew  Matthew.  The  con- 
trary opinion  is  defended  by  Meyer,  Weiss,  and  others,  and  prevails  among 
English  divines. 

3 Eusebius  (III.  39)  calls  him  <r<p68pa  o-fuKpb s rbv  vovv,  “very  narrow-minded,” 
but  on  account  of  his  millenarianism,  as  the  context  shows.  In  another  place 
he  calls  him  a man  of  comprehensive  learning  and  great  knowledge  of  the 
Scriptures  (III.  39  : Tcb  vavra  p.a\iffTa  Koyi&Taros  Kal  rijs  ypacpijs  €i8^/u<oy). 


624 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


early  stage  of  Christianity.  And  the  existence  of  a Hebrew 
Matthew  rests  by  no  means  merely  on  Papias.  It  is  confirmed 
by  the  independent  testimonies  of  most  respectable  fathers,  as 
Irenaeus,1  Pantaenus,2  Origen,3  Eusebius,4  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,6 
Epiphanius,0  and  Jerome.7 

This  Hebrew  Matthew  must  not  be  identified  with  the  Juda- 
izing  “ Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,”  the  best  among  the 
apocryphal  Gospels,  of  which  in  all  thirty-three  fragments  re- 
main. Jerome  and  other  fathers  clearly  distinguish  the  two. 
The  latter  was  probably  an  adaptation  of  the  former  to  the  use 
of  the  Ebionites  and  hTazarenes.8  Truth  always  precedes  heresy, 

1 Ado.  Ilcer . , III.  1,1:  6 pkv  brj  M ar&aios  iv  rois  'Efrpaiois  rrj  15'ict  biuA(KT<p 
avTu v Kal  ypa<p)]v  i^veyKev  evayyeAlov,  rov  Tlirpov  Kal  TlavAou  iv  'Pu>p.ri  evay- 
yeAi£o/j.iv<av  Kal  &e/j.eAiovvToov  tV  iKKArjfflav.  The  chronological  reference  is  so 
far  inaccurate,  as  neither  Peter  nor  Paul  were  personally  the  founders  of  the 
church  of  Rome,  yet  it  was  founded  through  their  influence  and  their  pupils, 
and  consolidated  by  their  presence  and  martyrdom. 

2 He  is  reported  by  Eus. , H.  E .,  V.  10,  to  have  found  in  India  (probably  in 
Southern  Arabia)  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  in  Hebrew  ('EPpatwv 
ypdpna<n),  which  had  been  left  there  by  Bartholomew,  one  of  the  apostles. 
This  testimony  is  certainly  independent  of  Papias.  But  it  may  be  questioned 
whether  a Hebrew  original,  or  a Hebrew  translation,  is  meant. 

3 In  Eus. , H.  A7.,  YI.  25.  Origen,  however,  drew  his  report  of  a Hebrew  Mat- 
thew not  from  personal  knowledge,  but  from  tradition  (is  iv  n apa86crei  na&uv). 

4 H.  A.,  III.  24  : Mar&aTos  /uev  yap  Trp6repov  'Efipaiois  KT)pv£asy  ws  ejueAAe  Kal 
4<p'  iripovs  Uvai , tt arp'ua  'yAcorrt?  ypacprj  irapaSovs  rb  kut * avrbv  cvayyeAiov , t b 
Aiiirov  rrj  avrov  irapovaia  rovrois , cup’  uv  iareAAero,  5 icfc  rrjs  ypa<prjs  cnreTrA'hpov. 
“M. , having  first  preached  the  Gospel  in  Hebrew,  when  on  the  point  of  going 
also  to  other  nations,  committed  it  to  writing  in  his  native  tongue,  and  thus 
supplied  the  want  of  his  presence  to  them  by  his  book.” 

6 Catech.  14  : MaT&.  6 y paxpas  rb  evayyeAtov  'Efipaibi  yAu<rarj. 

6 Hour.,  XXX.  3 ; comp.  LI.  5. 

7 Prcef.  in  Matth.  ; on  Matt.  12  : 13  ; Dial,  c Pelag.,  III.,  c.  2 ; De  Vir. 
illnstr . , c.  2 and  3.  Jerome’s  testimony  is  somewhat  conflicting.  He  re- 
ceived a copy  of  the  Hebrew  M.  from  the  Nazarenes  in  Bercea  in  Syria  for 
transcription  (392).  But  afterward  (415)  he  seems  to  have  found  out  that 
the  supposed  Hebrew  Matthew  in  the  library  of  Pamphilus  at  Caesarea  was 
“the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews”  ( Evangelium  juxta , or  secundum 
Hebrceos),  which  he  translated  both  into  Greek  and  Latin  ( De  vir.  ill.,  c.  2). 
This  would  have  been  useless,  if  the  Hebrew  Gospel  had  been  only  the  original 
of  the  canonical  Matthew.  See  Weiss,  l.  c. , pp.  7 sq. 

8 The  fragments  of  this  Gospel  (“  quo  utuntur  Nazareni  et  Ebionitae 
Jerome)  were  collected  by  Credner,  Beitrdge , I.  380  sqq.  ; Hilgenfeld,  Nov. 
Test,  extra  can.  rec .,  IV.,  and  especially  by  Nicholson  in  the  work  quoted 


§ 80.  MATTHEW. 


625 


as  the  genuine  coin  precedes  the  counterfeit,  and  the  real  por- 
trait the  caricature.  Cureton  and  Tregelles  maintain  that  the 
Curetonian  Syriac  fragment  is  virtually  a translation  of  the 
Hebrew  Matthew,  and  antedates  the  Peshito  version.  But 
Ewald  has  proven  that  it  is  derived  from  our  Greek  Matthew.1 

Papias  says  that  everybody  “ interpreted  ” the  Hebrew  Mat- 
thew as  well  as  he  could.  He  refers  no  doubt  to  the  use  of  the 
Gospel  in  public  discourses  before  Greek  hearers,  not  to  a num- 
ber of  written  translations  of  which  we  know  nothing.  The 
past  tense  (rjpfirjvevo-e)  moreover  seems  to  imply  that  such 
necessity  existed  no  longer  at  the  time  when  he  wrote ; in 
other  words,  that  the  authentic  Greek  Matthew  had  since  ap- 
peared and  superseded  the  Aramaic  predecessor  which  was 
probably  less  complete.2  Papias  accordingly  is  an  indirect  wit- 
ness of  the  Greek  Matthew  in  his  own  age ; that  is,  the  early 
part  of  the  second  century  (about  a.d.  130).  At  all  events  the 
Greek  Matthew  was  in  public  use  even  before  that  time,  as  is 
evident  from  the  quotations  in  the  Didache , and  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas  (which  were  written  before  120,  probably  before  100). 

The  Greek  Matthew. 

The  Greek  Matthew,  as  we  have  it  now,  is  not  a close  trans- 
lation from  the  Hebrew  and  bears  the  marks  of  an  original 
composition.  This  appears  from  genuine  Greek  words  and 

above.  It  is  far  superior  to  the  other  apocryphal  Gospels,  and  was  so  much 
like  the  Hebrew  Matthew  that  many  confounded  it  with  the  same,  as  Jerome 
observes,  ad  Matth.  12  : 13  (“ quod  vocatur  a plerisque  Matthmi  authenticvm ”) 
and  C.  Pelag.,  III.  2.  The  Tubingen  view  (Baur,  Schwegler.  Hilgenfeld) 
reverses  the  natural  order  and  makes  this  heretical  gospel  the  Urmatthceus 
(proto-Matthew),  of  which  our  Greek  Matthew  is  an  orthodox  transformation 
made  as  late  as  130  ; but  Keim  (I.,  29  sqq.),  Meyer  (p  19),  and  Weiss  (pp.  8 
and  9)  have  sufficiently  refuted  this  hypothesis.  Nicholson  modifies  the 
Tubingen  theory  by  assuming  that  Matthew  wrote  at  different  times  the 
canonical  Gospel  and  those  portions  of  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews, 
which  run  parallel  with  it. 

1 See  Holtzmann,  p.  269,  and  Ewald’s  “ Jahrbiicher,”  IX.  69  sqq. 

2 So  Meyer  (p.  12,  against  Holtzmann),  and  Lightfoot  (p.  397,  against  the 
author  of  “ Supern.  Rel.”).  Schleiermacher  was  wrong  in  referring  r\pixT\vev<re 
to  narrative  additions. 


626 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


phrases  to  which  there  is  no  parallel  in  Hebrew,  as  the  truly 
classical  “ Those  wretches  he  will  wretchedly  destroy,”1  and 
from  the  discrimination  in  Old  Testament  quotations  which  are 
freely  taken  from  the  Septuagint  in  the  course  of  the  narrative, 
but  conformed  to  the  Hebrew  when  they  convey  Messianic 
prophecies,  and  are  introduced  by  the  solemn  formula : “ that 
there  might  be  fulfilled,”  or  “ then  was  fulfilled.” 2 

If  then  we  credit  the  well  nigh  unanimous  tradition  of  the 
ancient  church  concerning  a prior  Hebrew  Matthew,  we  must 
either  ascribe  the  Greek  Matthew  to  some  unknown  translator 
who  took  certain  liberties  with  the  original,3  or,  what  seems 
most  probable,  we  must  assume  that  Matthew  himself  at  differ- 
ent periods  of  his  life  wrote  his  Gospel  first  in  Hebrew  in 
Palestine,  and  afterward  in  Greek.4  In  doing  so,  he  would  not 
literally  translate  his  own  book,  but  like  other  historians  freely 
reproduce  and  improve  it.  Josephus  did  the  same  with  his  his- 
tory of  the  Jewish  war,  of  which  only  the  Greek  remains.  When 
the  Greek  Matthew  once  was  current  in  the  church,  it  naturally 
superseded  the  Hebrew,  especially  if  it  was  more  complete. 

Objections  are  raised  to  Matthew’s  authorship  of  the  first 
canonical  Gospel,  from  real  or  supposed  inaccuracies  in  the 

1 21  : 41  : kclkovs  k(lkS>s  foro\e<rei,  pessimos  pessime  (or  malos  male ) perdet. 
The  E.  Revision  reproduces  the  paronomasia  (which  is  obliterated  in  the 
E.  V.)  thus  : “He  will  miserably  destroy  those  miserable  men.”  Other  plays 
on  words  : Yl4rpos  and  7rerpa,  16  : 18  ; ParroXoyeiv  and  iroXvXoyla , 6:7;  a(pavi£- 
ovciv  ottos  (pauaxri,  “ they  make  their  faces  unappearable  (disfigure  them),  that 
they  may  appear ,”  6 : 16;  comp.  24  : 7.  Weiss  derives  the  originality  of  the 
Greek  Matthew  from  the  use  of  the  Greek  Mark  ; but  this  would  not  account 
for  these  and  similar  passages. 

2 Jerome  first  observed  that  Matthew  follows  not  Septuaginta  transla- 
torum  auctoritatem , sed  Hebraicam  (De  vir.  iUustr.,  c.  3).  Credner  and  Bleek 
brought  out  this  important  difference  more  fully,  and  Holtzmann  (Die  Syn. 
Evang.,  p.  259),  Ritschl,  Kostlin,  Keim  (I.,  59  sqq  ),  Meyer  (p.  9),  and  Weiss 
(p.  44)  confirm  it.  But  Hilgenfeld  and  Keim  unnecessarily  see  in  this  fact  an 
indication  of  a later  editor,  who  exists  only  in  their  critical  fancy. 

8 Jerome  acknowledges  the  uncertainty  of  the  translator,  De  vir.  ill.,  c.  3 : 
“ Quis  postea  in  Graecum  transtulerit  [the  Hebrew  Matthew],  non  satis  cer- 
tum  est .”  It  has  been  variously  traced  to  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord 
Synops.  Pseudo- Athan.),  to  a disciple  of  Matthew,  or  to  another  disciple. 

4 So  Bengel,  Guericke,  Schott,  Olshausen,  Thiersch. 


§ 81.  MARK. 


627 


narrative,  but  they  are  at  best  very  trifling  and  easily  explained 
by  the  fact  that  Matthew  paid  most  attention  to  the  words  of 
Christ,  and  probably  had  a better  memory  for  thoughts  than 
for  facts.1 

But  whatever  be  the  view  we  take  of  the  precise  origin  of  the 
first  canonical  Gospel,  it  was  universally  received  in  the  ancient 
church  as  the  work  of  Matthew.  It  was  our  Matthew  who  is 
often,  though  freely,  quoted  by  Justin  Martyr  as  early  as 
a.d.  146  among  the  “ Gospel  Memoirs ; ” it  was  one  of  the  four 
Gospels  of  which  his  pupil  Tatian  compiled  a connected 
“ Diatessaron ; ” and  it  was  the  only  Matthew  used  by  Irenaeus 
and  all  the  fathers  that  follow. 


§ 81.  Marie . 

Commentaries . 

George  Petter  (the  largest  Com.  on  M.,  London,  1661,  2 vols.  fol.) ; 
C.  Fr.  A.  Fritzsche  (Evangelium  Marti,  Lips.,  1830) ; A.  Kloster- 
mann  ( Das  Marcusevangelium  nach  seinem  Quellenwerthe  fur  die 
evang.  Gesch .,  Gottingen,  1867)  ; B.  Weiss  (Das  Marcusevangelium 
und  seine  synopt.  Parallelen,  Berlin,  1872) ; Meyer  (6th  ed.  by  Weiss, 
Gott.,  1878) ; Joseph  A.  Alexander  (New  York,  1858,  and  London, 
1866) ; Harvey  Goodwin  (London,  1860)  ; John  H.  Godwin  (Lon- 
don, 1869)  ; James  Morison  ( Mark's  Memoir  of  Jesus  Christ , London 
and  Glasgow,  1873,  second  ed.,  1876,  third  ed.,  1881,  one  of  the 
very  best  Com.,  learned,  reverential,  and  sensible)  ; C.  F.  Macleab 
(Cambridge,  1877) ; Canon  Cook  (London,  1878) ; Edwin  W.  Rice 
(Philad.,  1881) ; Matthew  B.  Riddle  (New  York,  1881). 

1 Meyer  and  Weiss  regard  the  reports  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  at  the 
crucifixion  and  the  story  of  the  watch,  ch.  27  : 52,  62-66,  as  post-apostolic 
legends  ; but  the  former  is  not  more  difficult  than  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus, 
and  the  latter  has  all  the  marks  of  intrinsic  probability.  Meyer  also  gratui- 
tously assumes  that  Matthew  must  be  corrected  from  John  on  the  date  of  the 
crucifixion  ; but  there  is  no  real  contradiction  between  the  Synoptic  and  the 
Johannean  date.  See  p.  133.  Meyer’s  opinion  is  that  Matthew  wrote  only  a 
Hebrew  collection  of  the  discourses  of  our  Lord,  that  an  unknown  hand  at  an 
early  date  added  the  narrative  portions,  and  another  anonymous  writer, 
before  the  year  70,  made  the  Greek  translation  which  was  universally  and 
justly,  as  far  as  substance  is  concerned,  regarded  as  Matthew’s  work  (pp.  14, 
23).  But  these  are  all  pure  conjectures. 


628 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Life  of  Mark. 

The  second  Evangelist  combines  in  his  name,  as  well  as  in  his 
mission,  the  Hebrew  and  the  Homan,  and  is  a connecting  link 
between  Peter  and  Paul,  but  more  especially  a pupil  and  com- 
panion of  the  former,  so  that  his  Gospel  may  properly  be  called 
the  Gospel  of  Peter.  His  original  name  was  John  or  Johanan 
(i.  e .,  Jehovah  is  gracious,  Gotthold ),  his  surname  was  Mark  (i.  e., 
Mallet).1  The  surname  supplanted  the  Hebrew  name  in  his 
later  life,  as  Peter  supplanted  Simon,  and  Paul  supplanted 
Saul.  The  change  marked  the  transition  of  Christianity  from 
the  Jews  to  the  Gentiles.  He  is  frequently  mentioned  in  the 
Acts  and  the  Epistles.2 

He  was  the  son  of  a certain  Mary  who  lived  at  Jerusalem 
and  offered  her  house,  at  great  risk  no  doubt  in  that  critical 
period  of  persecution,  to  the  Christian  disciples  for  devotional 
meetings.  Peter  repaired  to  that  house  after  his  deliverance 
from  prison  (a.d.  44).  This  accounts  for  the  close  intimacy  of 
Mark  with  Peter ; he  was  probably  converted  through  him,  and 
hence  called  his  spiritual  “ son  ” (1  Pet.  5 : 13). 3 He  may  have 
had  a superficial  acquaintance  with  Christ ; for  he  is  probably 
identical  with  that  unnamed  “young  man”  who,  according  to  his 
own  report,  left  his  “ linen  cloth  and  fled  naked  ” from  Getli- 
semane  in  the  night  of  betrayal  (14 : 51).  He  would  hardly 
have  mentioned  such  a trifling  incident,  unless  it  had  a special 
significance  for  him  as  the  turning-point  in  his  life.  Lange 
ingeniously  conjectures  that  his  mother  owned  the  garden  of 
Gethsemane  or  a house  close  by. 

Mark  accompanied  Paul  and  Barnabas  as  their  minister 
( v7rrjpeTr]< ?)  on  their  first  great  missionary  journey ; but  left 

1 Marcus , and  the  diminutive  Marcellus  (Little  Mallet),  are  well  known 
Roman  names.  Marcus  Tullius  Cicero  wrote  an  oration  pro  Marco  Marcello . 

2 Acts  12  : 12,  25;  13  : 5,  13;  15  : 37;  Col.  4 : 10 ; 2 Tim.  4 : 11  ; Philem. 
24 ; 1 Pet.  5 : 13. 

3 There  is  no  good  reason  for  taking  “ son  ” here  literally  (with  Credner), 
when  the  figurative  meaning  so  fully  harmonizes  with  Scripture  usage  and 
with  what  we  otherwise  certainly  know  of  Mark’s  intimate  relations  to  Peter 
both  from  the  Acts  and  from  tradition.  A daughter  of  Peter  (Petronilla)  is 
mentioned  by  tradition,  but  not  a son.  Clement  of  Alexandria  says  that 
“ Peter  and  Philip  begat  children.” 


§ 81.  MARK. 


G29 


them  half-way,  being  discouraged,  it  seems,  by  the  arduous 
work,  and  returned  to  his  mother  in  Jerusalem.  For  this  rea- 
son Paul  refused  to  take  him  on  his  next  tour,  while  Barnabas 
was  willing  to  overlook  his  temporary  weakness  (Acts  15  : 38). 
There  was  a “ sharp  contention  ” on  that  occasion  between  these 
good  men,  probably  in  connection  with  the  more  serious  col- 
lision between  Paul  and  Peter  at  Antioch  (Gal.  2 : 11  sqq.). 
Paul  was  moved  by  a stern  sense  of  duty  ; Barnabas  by  a kindly 
feeling  for  his  cousin.1  But  the  alienation  was  only  temporary. 
For  about  ten  years  afterwards  (63)  Paul  speaks  of  Mark  at 
Pome  as  one  of  his  few  “ fellow-workers  unto  the  kingdom  of 
God,”  who  had  been  “ a comfort  ” to  him  in  his  imprisonment ; 
and  he  commends  him  to  the  brethren  in  Asia  Minor  on  his 
intended  visit  (Col.  4 : 10,  11 ; Philem.  24).  In  his  last  Epistle 
he  charges  Timothy  to  bring  Mark  with  him  to  Rome  on  the 
ground  that  he  was  “useful  to  him  for  ministering”  (2  Tim. 
4 : 11).  We  find  him  again  in  company  with  Peter  at  “ Baby- 
lon,” whether  that  be  on  the  Euphrates,  or,  more  probably,  at 
Rome  (1  Pet.  5 : 13). 

These  are  the  last  notices  of  him  in  the  New  Testament. 
The  tradition  of  the  church  adds  two  important  facts,  that  he 
wrote  his  Gospel  in  Rome  as  the  interpreter  of  Peter,  and  that 
afterwards  he  founded  the  church  of  Alexandria.  The  Coptic 
patriarch  claims  to  be  his  successor.  The  legends  of  his  martyr- 
dom in  the  eighth  year  of  Nero  (this  date  is  given  by  Jerome) 
are  worthless.  In  827  his  relics  were  removed  from  Egypt  to 
Venice,  which  built  him  a magnificent  five-domed  cathedral  on 
the  Place  of  St.  Mark,  near  the  Doge’s  palace,  and  chose  him 
with  his  symbol,  the  Lion,  for  the  patron  saint  of  the  republic. 

His  Relation  to  Peter. 

Though  not  an  apostle,  Mark  had  the  best  opportunity  in  his 
mother’s  house  and  his  personal  connection  with  Peter,  Paul, 
Barnabas,  and  other  prominent  disciples  for  gathering  the  most 
authentic  information  concerning  the  gospel  history. 

1 ayeij/nf s,  Col.  4 : 10. 


630 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


The  earliest  notice  of  his  Gospel  we  have  from  Papias  of 
Hierapolis  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century.  He  reports 
among  the  primitive  traditions  which  he  collected,  that  “ Mark, 
having  become  the  interpreter  of  Peter  (epfnjvevTrjs  TJerpov 
yevopLevos),  wrote  down  accurately  (afepifim  eypayfrev)  whatever 
he  remembered,1  without,  however,  recording  in  order  (rd^et) 
what  was  either  said  or  done  by  Christ.  For  neither  did  he 
hear  the  Lord,  nor  did  he  follow  Him ; but  afterwards,  as  I 
said,  [he  followed]  Peter,  who  adapted  his  instructions  to  the 
needs  [of  his  hearers],  but  not  in  the  way  of  giving  a connected 
account  of  the  Lord’s  discourses.2  So  then  Mark  committed  no 
error  in  thus  writing  down  such  details  as  he  remembered ; for 
he  made  it  his  one  forethought  not  to  omit  or  to  misrepresent 
any  details  that  he  had  heard.” 3 

In  what  sense  was  Mark  an  “ interpreter”  of  Peter  ? Hot  as  the 
translator  of  a written  Aramaic  Gospel  of  Peter  into  the  Greek, 
for  of  such  an  Aramaic  original  there  is  no  trace,  and  Peter  (to 
judge  from  his  Epistles)  wrote  better  Greek ; nor  as  the  trans- 
lator of  his  discourses  into  Latin,  for  we  know  not  whether  he 
understood  that  language,  and  it  was  scarcely  needed  even  in 
Home  among  Jews  and  Orientals  who  spoke  Greek ; 4 nor  in  the 
wider  sense,  as  a mere  clerk  or  amanuensis,  who  wrote  down 
what  Peter  dictated  ; but  as  the  literary  editor  and  publisher  of 

1 tfjii/rimSvevcre.  It  is  so  translated  by  Valois,  Lardner,  Meyer,  Weiss,  Light- 
foot.  The  rendering  “ recorded, ” which  is  preferred  by  Cruse  and  Morison, 
makes  it  tautological  with  the  preceding  typaxf/e v.  The  “he”  may  be  referred 
to  Mark  or  to  Peter,  probably  to  the  former. 

2 aAA’  ox>x  ttxrirep  avyra^iv  rwv  KvpiaKvv  ir oiovgevos  \6y asv  (or  A oyieau,  oracles). 

3Euseb.,  Hist.  Heel.,  III.  39.  For  a critical  discussion  of  this  important 

testimony  see  Weiss  and  Morison,  also  Lightfoot  in  the  “ Contemp.  Rev.,” 
vol.  XXVI.  (1875),  pp.  393  sqq.  There  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  for  refer- 
ring this  description  to  a fictitious  pre-canonical  Mark,  as  is  still  done  by 
Davidson  (new  ed. , I.  539). 

4 The  Latin  was  provincial,  the  Greek  universal  in  the  Roman  empire. 
Cicero  (Pro  Arch.,  10)  : “ Greeca  leguntur  in  omnibus  fere  gentibus ; Latina 
suis  finibus,  exiguis  sane,  continentur .”  The  tradition  that  Mark  write  his 
Gospel  first  in  Latin  is  too  late  to  deserve  any  credit.  Baronius  defends  it  in 
the  interest  of  the  Vulgate,  and  puts  the  composition  back  to  the  year  45 
The  supposed  Latin  autograph  of  Mark’s  Gospel  at  Venice  is  a fragment  of 
the  Vulgate. 


§ 81.  MARK. 


631 


tlie  oral  Gospel  of  his  spiritual  father  and  teacher.  So  Mercury 
was  called  the  interpreter  of  the  gods,  because  he  communicated 
to  mortals  the  messages  of  the  gods.  It  is  quite  probable, 
however,  that  Peter  sketched  down  some  of  the  chief  events 
under  the  first  impression,  in  his  vernacular  tongue,  and  that 
such  brief  memoirs,  if  they  existed,  would  naturally  be  made 
use  of  by  Mark.1 

We  learn,  then,  from  Papias  that  Mark  wrote  his  Gospel 
from  the  personal  reminiscences  of  Peter’s  discourses,  which 
were  adapted  to  the  immediate  wants  of  his  hearers ; that  it 
was  not  complete  (especially  in  the  didactic  part,  as  compared 
with  Matthew  or  John),  nor  strictly  chronological. 

Clement  of  Alexandria  informs  us  that  the  people  of  Pome 
were  so  much  pleased  with  the  preaching  of  Peter  that  they 
requested  Mark,  his  attendant,  to  put  it  down  in  writing,  which 
Peter  neither  encouraged  nor  hindered.  Other  ancient  fathers 
emphasize  the  close  intimacy  of  Mark  with  Peter,  and  call  his 
Gospel  the  Gospel  of  Peter.’ 

The  Gospel. 

This  tradition  is  confirmed  by  the  book : it  is  derived  from 
the  apostolic  preaching  of  Peter,  but  is  the  briefest  and  so  far  the 
least  complete  of  all  the  Gospels,  yet  replete  with  significant 
details.  It  reflects  the  sanguine  and  impulsive  temperament, 
rapid  movement,  and  vigorous  action  of  Peter.  In  this  respect 
its  favorite  particle  “ straightway  ” is  exceedingly  characteristic. 
The  break-down  of  Mark  in  Pamphylia,  which  provoked  the 
censure  of  Paul,  has  a parallel  in  the  denial  and  inconsistency 
of  Peter ; but,  like  him,  he  soon  rallied,  was  ready  to  accompany 
Paul  on  his  next  mission,  and  persevered  faithfully  to  the  end. 

1 Justin  Martyr  ( Dial.  c.  Tryph. , c.  106)  actually  quotes  from  the  “Memoirs 
( airo/iy€juoyev/u.ara ) of  Peter”  the  designation  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  “Boan- 
erges” or  “ Sons  of  Thunder;  ” but  he  evidently  refers  to  the  written  Gospel 
of  Mark,  who  alone  mentions  this  fact,  3 : 17. 

* See  the  testimonies  of  Jerome,  Eusebius,  Origen,  Tertullian,  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  Irenaeus,  Justin  Martyr,  and  Papias,  well  presented  in  Kirchhofer 
(ed.  Charteris)  on  Canonicity,  pp.  141-150,  and  in  Morison’s  Com.,  pp.  xx- 
xxxiv. 


632 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


He  betrays,  by  omissions  and  additions,  the  direct  influence 
of  Peter.  He  informs  us  that  the  house  of  Peter  was  “ the 
house  of  Simon  and  Andrew”  (1:29).  He  begins  the  public 
ministry  of  Christ  with  the  calling  of  these  two  brothers  (1 : 16), 
and  ends  the  undoubted  part  of  the  Gospel  with  a message  to 
Peter  (16:7),  and  the  supplement  almost  in  the  very  words  of 
Peter.1  He  tells  us  that  Peter  on  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration, 
when  he  proposed  to  erect  three  tabernacles,  “ knew  not  what 
to  say  ” (9  : 6).  He  gives  the  most  minute  account  of  Peter’s 
denial,  and — alone  among  the  Evangelists — records  the  fact  that 
he  warmed  himself  “ in  the  light  ” of  the  fire  so  that  he  could 
be  distinctly  seen  (14  : 54),  and  that  the  cock  crew  twice , giving 
him  a second  warning  (14  : 72).  ]No  one  would  be  more  likely 
to  remember  and  report  the  fact  as  a stimulus  to  humility 
and  gratitude  than  Peter  himself. 

On  the  other  hand,  Mark  omits  the  laudatory  words  of  Jesus 
to  Peter : “ Thou  art  Pock,  and  upon  this  rock  I will  build  my 
church ; ” while  yet  he  records  the  succeeding  rebuke : “ Get 
thee  behind  me,  Satan.”3  The  humility  of  the  apostle,  who 
himself  wrarns  so  earnestly  against  the  hierarchical  abuse  of  the 
former  passage,  offers  the  most  natural  explanation  of  this  con- 
spicuous omission.  “ It  is  likely,”  says  Eusebius,  “ that  Peter 
maintained  silence  on  these  points ; hence  the  silence  of  Mark.” 3 


Character  and  Aim  of  Mark. 

The  second  Gospel  was — according  to  the  unanimous  voice  of 
the  ancient  church,  which  is  sustained  by  internal  evidence — 
written  at  Pome  and  primarily  for  Poman  readers,  probably 

1 16  : 19  : “ The  Lord  Jesus  . . . was  received  up  into  heaven,  and  sat 
down  at  the  right  hand  of  God;  ” comp.  1 Pet.  3 : 22:  “who  is  on  the  right 
hand  of  God,  having  gone  into  heaven.” 

a Ch.  8 : 27-33  ; compared  with  Matt.  16  : 13-33. 

° Dem.  Evang. , III.  5,  quoted  by  Morison,  p.  xxxv.  In  view  of  the  facts 
quoted  above  the  reader  may  judge  of  Dr.  Davidson’s  assertion  ( Introd .,  1882, 
vol.  I.,  541)  : “ That  Mark  was  not  the  writer  of  the  canonical  Gospel  may  be 
inferred  from  the  fact  that  it  is  not  specially  remarkable  in  particulars  relative 
to  Peter.” 


§ 81.  MARK.  633 

before  the  death  of  Peter,  at  all  events  before  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.1 

It  is  a faithful  record  of  Peter’s  preaching,  which  Mark  must 
have  heard  again  and  again.  It  is  an  historical  sermon  on  the 
text  of  Peter  when  addressing  the  Roman  soldier  Cornelius: 
“God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
with  power : who  went  about  doing  good,  and  healing  all  that 
were  oppressed  of  the  devil ; for  God  was  with  him.”  8 It 
omits  the  history  of  the  infancy,  and  rushes  at  once  into  the 
public  ministry  of  our  Lord,  beginning,  like  Peter,  with  the 
baptism  of  John,  and  ending  with  the  ascension.  It  represents 
Christ  in  the  fulness  of  his  living  energy,  as  the  Son  of  God  and 
the  mighty  wonder-worker  who  excited  amazement  and  carried 
the  people  irresistibly  before  him  as  a spiritual  conqueror.  This 
aspect  would  most  impress  the  martial  mind  of  the  Romans, 
who  wrere  born  to  conquer  and  to  rule.  The  teacher  is  lost  in 
the  founder  of  a kingdom.  The  heroic  element  prevails  over 
the  prophetic.  The  victory  over  Satanic  powers  in  the  healing 
of  demoniacs  is  made  very  prominent.  It  is  the  gospel  of 
divine  force  manifested  in  Christ.  The  symbol  of  the  lion  is 
not  inappropriate  to  the  Evangelist  who  describes  Jesus  as  the 
Lion  of  the  tribe  of  Judah.3 

1 Irenaeus  ( Adv . Hcer.,  III.  1)  says  “ after  the  departure”  of  Peter  and 
Paul,  “post  liorum  excessum ,”  or  in  the  original  Greek  preserved  by  Eusebius 
(//.  E .,  V.  8,  ed.  Heinichen,  I.  224),  pera  tV  tovtcov  QoHov.  This  must  mean 
<k  after  their  decease,”  not  “ after  their  departure  from  Rome  ” (Grabe).  But 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  Origen,  Epiphanius,  Eusebius,  Jerome,  and  other 
fathers  assign  the  composition  to  a time  before  the  martyrdom  of  Peter. 
Christophorson  (in  his  Latin  Version  of  the  Church  History  of  Eusebius, 
publ.  1570,  as  quoted  by  Stieren  in  Iren.  Op.,  I.  423,  note  4)  suggested  a dif- 
ferent reading,  perk  tV  c kSoo-iv,  i.  e. , after  the  publication  of  Matthew’s 
Hebrew  Gospel,  as  spoken  of  in  the  preceding  sentence,  and  Morison  (p.  xxv) 
eeems  inclined  to  accept  this  conjecture.  Very  unlikely;  all  the  MSS., 
Rufinus  and  the  Latin  translator  of  Irenaeus  read  c |o8oj/.  See  Stieren,  in  loc. 
The  conflicting  statements  can  be  easily  harmonized  by  a distinction  between 
the  composition  before,  and  the  publication  after,  the  death  of  Peter.  By 
publication  in  those  days  was  meant  the  copying  and  distribution  of  a book. 

2 Acts  10  : 38.  The  sermon  of  Peter  to  Cornelius  is  the  Gospel  of  Mark  in 
a nutshell. 

3 Lange  ( Com. , p.  2)  : ‘ k Mark  delineates  Christ  as,  from  first  to  last,  pre- 
eminently the  victorious  conqueror  of  all  Satanic  powers.  He  has  left  us  a 


634 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Mark  gives  us  a Gospel  of  facts,  wliile  Matthew’s  is  a Gospel 
of  divine  oracles.  He  reports  few  discourses,  but  many  miracles. 
He  unrolls  the  short  public  life  of  our  Lord  in  a series  of  brief 
life-pictures  in  rapid  succession.  He  takes  no  time  to  explain 
and  to  reveal  the  inside.  He  dwells  on  the  outward  aspect  of 
that  wonderful  personality  as  it  struck  the  multitude.  Com- 
pared with  Matthew  and  especially  with  John,  he  is  superficial, 
but  not  on  that  account  incorrect  or  less  useful  and  necessary. 
He  takes  the  theocratic  view  of  Christ,  like  Matthew;  while 
Luke  and  John  take  the  universal  view ; but  while  Matthew  for 
his  Jewish  readers  begins  with  the  descent  of  Christ  from 
David  the  King  and  often  directs  attention  to  the  fulfilment  of 
prophecy,  Mark,  writing  for  Gentiles,  begins  with  “the  Son 
of  God”  in  his  independent  personality.1  He  rarely  quotes 
prophecy ; but,  on  the  other  hand,  he  translates  for  his  Homan 
readers  Aramaic  words  and  Jewish  customs  and  opinions.2  He 
exhibits  the  Son  of  God  in  his  mighty  power  and  expects  the 
reader  to  submit  to  his  authority. 

Two  miracles  are  peculiar  to  him,  the  healing  of  the  deaf  and 
dumb  man  in  Decapolis,  which  astonished  the  people  “ beyond 
measure  ” and  made  them  exclaim : “ He  hath  done  all  things 
well : he  maketh  even  the  deaf  to  hear,  and  the  dumb  to  speak  ” 
(7  : 31-37).  The  other  miracle  is  a remarkable  specimen  of  a 

record  of  the  manifestation  of  Christ’s  power  when  that  great  Lion  seized 
upon  the  ancient  world,  and  of  his  brief  but  decisive  victory,  after  which  only 
the  ruins  of  the  ancient  world  are  left,  which  in  turn  furnish  the  materials 
for  the  new  one.”  Thomson  (Speaker’s  Com.,  Introd.  to  Gospels , p.  xxxv) : 
“ The  wonder-working  Son  of  God  sweeps  over  his  kingdom,  swiftly  and 
meteor-like  : and  men  are  to  wonder  and  adore.  His  course  is  sometimes 
represented  as  abrupt,  mysterious,  awful  to  the  disciples  : He  leaves  them  at 
night ; conceals  himself  from  them  on  a journey.  The  disciples  are  amazed 
and  afraid  (10  : 24,  32).  And  the  Evangelist  means  the  same  impression  of 
awe  to  be  imparted  to  the  reader.” 

1 The  reading  of  the  textus  rec.  uiov  ( rov ) &eov  in  Mark  1 : 1 is  sustained 
by  ABDL,  nearly  all  the  cursives,  and  retained  by  Lachmann  and  Tregellea 
in  the  text,  by  Westcott  and  Hort  in  the  margin.  Tischendorf  omitted  it  in  his 
8th  ed.  on  the  strength  of  his  favorite  fcfc*  (in  its  original  form),  and  Origen. 
Irenaeus  has  both  readings.  The  term  occurs  seven  times  in  Mark,  and  is  es- 
pecially appropriate  at  the  beginning  of  his  Gospel  and  a part  of  its  very  title 

3 3 : 17 ; 5 : 41 ; 7 : 1-4  ; 12  ; 18  ; 15  ; 6,  35. 


§ 81.  MARK. 


635 


gradual  euro,  the  healing  of  the  blind  man  at  Betlisaida,  who 
upon  the  first  touch  of  Christ  saw  the  men  around  him  walking, 
but  indistinctly  as  trees,  and  then  after  the  second  laying  on  of 
hands  upon  his  eyes  “saw  all  things  clearly”  (8  : 22-26).  lie 
omits  important  parables,  but  alone  gives  the  interesting  para- 
ble of  the  seed  growing  secretly  and  bearing  first  the  blade, 
then  the  ear,  then  the  full  grain  in  the  ear  (4  : 26-29). 

It  is  an  interesting  feature  to  which  Dr.  Lange  first  has 
directed  attention,  that  Mark  lays  emphasis  on  the  periods  of 
pause  and  rest  which  “rhythmically  intervene  between  the 
several  great  victories  achieved  by  Christ.”  lie  came  out  from 
his  obscure  abode  in  Nazareth ; each  fresh  advance  in  his  pub- 
lic life  is  preceded  by  a retirement,  and  each  retirement  is  fol- 
lowed by  a new  and  greater  victory.  The  contrast  between  the 
contemplative  rest  and  the  vigorous  action  is  striking  and  ex- 
plains the  overpowering  effect  by  revealing  its  secret  spring  in 
the  communion  with  God  and  with  himself.  Thus  we  have 
after  his  baptism  a retirement  to  the  wilderness  in  Judaea  before 
he  preached  in  Galilee  (1 : 12) ; a retirement  to  the  ship  (3:7); 
to  the  desert  on  the  eastern  shore  of  the  lake  of  Galilee  (6  : 31); 
to  a mountain  (6  : 46) ; to  the  border  land  of  Tyre  and  Sidon 
(7  : 24) ; to  Decapolis  (7  : 31) ; to  a high  mountain  (9:2);  to 
Bethany  (11  : 1) ; to  Gethsemane  (14  : 34) ; his  rest  in  the  grave 
before  the  resurrection ; and  his  withdrawal  from  the  world  and 
his  reappearance  in  the  victories  of  the  gospel  preached  by  his 
disciples.  “The  ascension  of  the  Lord  forms  his  last  with- 
drawal, which  is  to  be  followed  by  his  final  onset  and  absolute 
victory.” 1 

Doctrinal  Position. 

Mark  has  no  distinct  doctrinal  type,  but  is  catholic,  irenic, 
unsectarian,  and  neutral  as  regards  the  party  questions  within 
the  apostolic  church.  But  this  is  not  the  result  of  calculation 

* See  Lange’s  Analysis  of  Mark,  Com.,  pp.  12-14;  also  his  Bibelkunde,  pp. 
185-187.  Lange  discovered  many  characteristic  features  of  the  Gospels,  which 
have  passed  without  acknowledgment  into  many  other  books. 


636 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


or  of  a tendency  to  obliterate  and  conciliate  existing  differences.1 
Mark  simply  represents  the  primitive  form  of  Christianity  itself 
before  the  circumcision  controversy  broke  out  which  occasioned 
the  apostolic  conference  at  Jerusalem  twenty  years  after  the 
founding  of  the  church.  His  Gospel  is  Petrine  without  being 
anti-Pauline,  and  Pauline  without  being  anti-Petrine.  Its  doc- 
trinal tone  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  sermons  of  Peter  in  the 
Acts.  It  is  thoroughly  practical.  Its  preaches  Christianity,  not 
theology. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  other  Gospels,  with  this  difference, 
however,  that  Matthew  has  a special  reference  to  Jewish,  Luke 
to  Gentile  readers,  and  that  both  make  their  selection  accord- 
ingly under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  and  in  accordance  with 
their  peculiar  charisma  and  aim,  but  without  altering  or  color- 
ing the  facts.  Mark  stands  properly  between  them  just  as  Peter 
stood  between  James  and  Paul. 

The  Style. 

The  style  of  Mark  is  unclassical,  inelegant,  provincial,  homely, 
poor  and  repetitious  in  vocabulary,  but  original,  fresh,  and  pic- 
turesque, and  enlivened  by  interesting  touches  and  flickers.3 

1 As  asserted  by  Baur,  Schwegler,  Kostlin,  and  quite  recently  again  by  Dr. 
Davidson,  who  says.  (I.  505)  : “ The  colorless  neutrality  of  the  Gospel  was  an 
important  factor  in  conciliating  antagonistic  parties.”  Dr.  Morison  (p.  xlvi) 
well  remarks  against  this  Tubingen  tendency  criticism:  “There  is  not  so 
much  as  a straw  of  evidence  that  the  Gospel  of  Mark  occupied  a position  of 
mediation,  or  irenic  neutrality,  in  relation  to  the  other  two  Synoptic  Gospels. 
It  is  in  the  mere  wantonness  of  a creative  imagination  that  its  penman  is 
depicted  as  warily  steering  his  critical  bark  between  some  Scylla  in  St.  Mat- 
thew’s representations  and  some  Chary bdis  in  St.  Luke’s.  There  is  no  Scylla 
in  the  representations  of  St.  Matthew.  It  must  be  invented  if  suspected. 
There  is  no  Charybdis  in  the  representations  of  St.  Luke.  Neither  i3  there 
any  indication  in  St.  Mark  of  wary  steering,  or  of  some  latent  aim  of  destina- 
tion kept,  like  sealed  orders,  under  lock  and  key.  There  is,  in  all  the  Gospels, 
perfect  transparency  and  simplicity,  ‘the  simplicity  that  is  in  Christ.’  ” 

a Ewald  characterizes  Mark’s  style  as  the  Schmelz  der  frischen  Blume,  as  the 
voile , reine  Leben  der  Stoffe , Kahnis  as  drastisch  and  frappant , Meyer  as 
malernch  anschaulich.  Lange  speaks  of  the  “enthusiasm  and  vividness  of 
realization  which  accounts  for  the  brevity,  rapidity,  and  somewhat  dramatic 
tone  of  the  narrative,  and  the  introduction  of  details  which  give  life  to  the 
n 


scene. 


§ 81.  MARK. 


637 


He  was  a stranger  to  the  arts  of  rhetoric  and  unskilled  in  lite- 
rary composition,  but  an  attentive  listener,  a close  observer,  and 
faithful  recorder  of  actual  events.  He  is  strongly  Hebraizing, 
and  uses  often  the  Hebrew  and , but  seldom  the  argumentative 
for.  lie  inserts  a number  of  Latin  words,  though  most  of  these 
occur  also  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  in  the  Talmud.1  He  uses 
the  particle  “ forthwith  ” or  “ straightway  ” more  frequently 
than  all  the  other  Evangelists  combined.2  It  is  his  pet  word, 
and  well  expresses  his  haste  and  rapid  transition  from  event 
to  event,  from  conquest  to  conquest.  He  quotes  names  and 
phrases  in  the  original  Aramaic,  as  “Abba,”  “Boanerges,” 
“ Talitha,  kum,”  “ Corban,”  “ Ephphathah,”  and  “ Eloi,  Eloi,” 
with  a Greek  translation.3  He  is  fond  of  the  historical  present,4 5 
of  the  direct  instead  of  the  indirect  mode  of  speech,6  of  pic- 
torical  participles,6  and  of  affectionate  diminutives.7  He  ob- 
serves time  and  place  of  important  events.8 9  He  has  a number 
of  peculiar  expressions  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment.® 


1 Krjvcos  (census),  Kevrvplwv  ( centurio ),  {fWris  (sextarius),  (nreKovXdrwp  (specu- 
lator), and  the  Latinizing  phrases  rb  hcavbv  iroieiv  (satisfacere,  15  : 15),  eVxarwy 
exew  (in  extremis  esse),  o-vppovXiov  Siddvat  (consilium  dare).  Mark  even  uses 
the  Roman  names  of  coins  instead  of  the  Greek,  Kodpavrijs  ( quadrans , 
12  : 42). 

2 eu&ews  or  eu&vs  occurs  (according  to  Bruder^s  Concord. ) forty-one  times  in  the 
Gospel  of  Mark,  nearly  as  often  as  in  all  other  New  Test,  writings  combined. 
But  there  are  some  variations  in  reading.  Codex  D omits  it  in  several  pas- 
sages. The  English  Version,  by  its  inexcusable  love  of  variations,  obliterates 
many  characteristic  features  of  the  sacred  writers.  This  very  particle  is 
translated  in  no  less  than  seven  different  ways  : straightway,  immediately, 
forthwith,  as  soon  as,  by  and  by,  shortly,  and  anon. 

3 3 : 17 ; 5:41;  7:11,  34;  14:36;  15:34. 

4 1 : 21,  40,  44  ; 2 : 3,  10,  17 ; 11:1;  14  : 43,  66. 

5 4 : 39 ; 5 : 8,  9,  12  ; 6 : 23,  31  ; 9 : 25  ; 12  : 6. 

6 Such  as  avafiXexpau,  epfiXeipas,  irepi^Xe^/dpevos,  dvair rjbdjcas,  Kvrf/as,  ipfi 'pipijad- 
pevos,  eir iar t panels,  airoareva^as. 

7 As  iraidlov,  Kopdffiov,  Kvvdpiov , bvydrpiov,  tx&v8iov,  wrdpiov. 

3 Time  : 1 : 35  ; 2:1;  4 : 35  ; 6:2;  11  : 11,  19 ; 15  : 25  ; 16  : 2.  Place: 
2 : 13 ; 5 : 20  ; 7 : 31 ; 12  : 41 ; 13  : 3 ; 14  : 68  ; 15  : 39  ; 16  : 5. 

9 As  ayptveiv,  &\a\os,  dXtKTOpopcwta,  yvatpevs,  eic&apfie'ia&ai,  evayicaXifca&ai, 
e^diriva,  eveiAeaj,  l£ov5evSa>,  evvvxov,  poyi\d\os,  irpafftaX  irpaaiai,  TrpcxT&PfktTOVy 
irpop.epifj.vav,  irpo<roppi£e<T&at,  auv&Xlfieiv,  rrjXavyws,  vttoXtjviov,  and  others. 


638 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Characteristic  Details. 

Mark  inserts  many  delicate  tints  and  interesting  incidents  of 
persons  and  events  which  he  must  have  heard  from  primitive 
witnesses.  They  are  not  the  touches  of  fancy  or  the  reflections 
of  an  historian,  but  the  reminiscences  of  the  first  impressions. 
They  occur  in  every  chapter.  He  makes  some  little  contribu- 
tion to  almost  every  narrative  he  has  in  common  with  Matthew 
and  Luke.  He  notices  the  overpowering  impression  of  awe  and 
wonder,  joy  and  delight,  which  the  words  and  miracles  of  Jesus 
and  his  very  appearance  made  upon  the  people  and  the  dis- 
ciples ; 1 the  actions  of  the  multitude  as  they  were  rushing  and 
thronging  and  pressing  upon  Him  that  He  might  touch  and 
heal  them,  so  that  there  was  scarcely  standing  room,  or  time  to 
eat.2  On  one  occasion  his  kinsmen  were  about  forcibly  to  re- 
move Him  from  the  throng.  He  directs  attention  to  the  human 
emotions  and  passions  of  our  Lord,  how  he  was  stirred  by  pity, 
wonder,  grief,  anger  and  indignation.3  He  notices  his  attitudes, 
looks  and  gestures,4  his  sleep  and  hunger.6 

He  informs  us  that  Jesus,  “looking  upon”  the  rich  young 
ruler,  “loved  him,”  and  that  the  ruler’s  “countenance  fell” 
when  he  was  told  to  sell  all  he  had  and  to  follow  Jesus.  Mark, 
or  Peter  rather,  must  have  watched  the  eye  of  our  Lord  and 
read  in  his  face  the  expression  of  special  interest  in  that  man 
who  notwithstanding  his  self-righteousness  and  worldliness  had 
some  lovely  qualities  and  was  not  very  far  from  the  kingdom.8 

1 1 : 22,  27;  2 : 12  ; 4 : 41  ; 6 : 2,  51  ; 10  : 24,  26,  32. 

2 3 : 10,  20,  32 ; 4 : 1 ; 5 : 21,  31 ; 6 : 31,  33. 

3 6 : 34  : “he  had  compassion  on  them;  ” 6:6:  “he  marvelled  because  of 
their  unbelief”  (as  he  marvelled  also  at  the  great  faith  of  the  heathen  cen- 
turion, Matt.  8 : 10  ; Luke  7:8);  3:5:  “when  he  had  looked  round  about 
them  with  anger,  being  grieved  at  the  hardening  of  their  heart 8 : 12  : “he 
sighed  deeply  in  his  spirit 10  : 14  : “he  was  moved  with  indignation,”  or 
“ was  much  displeased”  with  the  conduct  of  the  disciples. 

4 1 : 31  ; 3 : 5,  34  ; 5 : 32  ; 7 : 33,  34  ; 8 : 12,  33  (“  but  he,  turning  about,  and 
seeing  his  disciples,  rebuked  Peter”) ; 9 : 35  ; 10  : 23,  32  ; 11:11. 

5 4 : 38  ; 6 : 31  ; 11  : 12. 

*10:21,  22:  4n&\tyas  avrcp  tiydir7)<rev  avriv.  This  must  be  taken  in  its 
natural  meaning  and  not  weakened  into  “ kissed  him,”  or  “spoke  kindly  to 


§ 81.  MARK. 


639 


The  cure  of  the  demoniac  and  epileptic  at  the  foot  of  the 
mount  of  transfiguration  is  narrated  with  greater  circumstan- 
tiality and  dramatic  vividness  by  Mark  than  by  the  other 
Synoptists.  lie  supplies  the  touching  conversation  of  Jesus 
with  the  father  of  the  sufferer,  which  drew  out  his  weak  and 
struggling  faith  with  the  earnest  prayer  for  strong  and  victori- 
ous faith:  “I  believe;  help  Thou  mine  unbelief.”1  We  can 
imagine  how  eagerly  Peter,  the  confessor,  caught  this  prayer, 
and  how  often  he  repeated  it  in  his  preaching,  mindful  of  his 
own  weakness  and  trials. 

All  the  Synoptists  relate  on  two  distinct  occasions  Christ’s 
love  for  little  children,  but  Mark  alone  tells  us  that  He  “ took 
little  children  into  his  arms,  and  laid  his  hands  upon  them.” a 

Many  minor  details  not  found  in  the  other  Gospels,  however 
insignificant  in  themselves,  are  yet  most  significant  as  marks  of 
the  autopticity  of  the  narrator  (Peter).  Such  are  the  notices 
that  Jesus  entered  the  house  of  “ Simon  and  Andrew,  with 
James  and  John  ” (1 : 29) ; that  the  Pharisees  took  counsel 
“ with  the  Herodians  ” (3:6);  that  the  raiment  of  Jesus  at  the 
transfiguration  became  exceeding  white  as  snow  “ so  as  no  fuller 
on  earth  can  whiten  them  ” (9:3);  that  blind  Bartimaeus  when 
called,  “ casting  away  his  garment,  leaped  up  ” (10  : 50),  and 
came  to  Jesus;  that  “Peter  and  James  and  John  and  Andrew 
asked  him  privately”  on  the  Mount  of  Olives  about  the  coming 
events  (13  : 3) ; that  the  five  thousand  sat  down  “ in  ranks,  by 
hundreds  and  fifties  ” (6  : 40) ; that  the  Simon  who  carried  the 
cross  of  Christ  (15  : 21)  was  a “ Cyrenian  ” and  “ the  father  of 
Alexander  and  Rufus”  (no  doubt,  two  well-known  disciples, 
perhaps  at  Rome,  comp.  Rom.  16  : 13). 

him,”  or  “pitied  him.”  Our  Saviour,  says  Morison,  in  “would  discern  in 
the  young  man  not  a little  that  was  really  amiable,  the  result  of  the  partial  re- 
ception and  reflection  of  gracious  Divine  influences.  There  was  ingenuousness, 
for  instance,  and  moral  earnestness.  There  was  restraint  of  the  animal  pas* 
sions,  and  an  aspiration  of  the  spirit  toward  the  things  of  the  world  to 
come.” 

1 9 : 21-25.  Comp.  Matt.  17  : 14-18  ; Luke  9 : 37-42. 

5 9 : 36  ; 10  : 16  ; comp,  with  Matt.  18:2;  19  : 13  ; and  Luke  9 : 48 ; 18  : 16. 


640 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


We  may  add,  as  peculiar  to  Mark  and  “bewraying”  Peter, 
the  designation  of  Christ  as  “ the  carpenter  ” (6:3);  the  name 
of  the  blind  beggar  at  Jericho,  “ Bartimaeus  ” (10  : 46) ; the 
“ cushion  ” in  the  boat  on  which  Jesus  slept  (4  : 38) ; the  “ green 
grass  ” on  the  hill  side  in  spring  time  (4  : 39) ; the  “ one  loaf  ” 
in  the  ship  (8  : 14) ; the  colt  “ tied  at  the  door  without  in  the 
open  street”  (11:4);  the  address  to  the  daughter  of  Jairus 
in  her  mother  tongue  (5:41);  the  bilingual  “Abba,  Father,” 
in  the  prayer  at  Gethsemane  (14  : 36  ; comp.  Bom.  8:15;  Gal. 
4:6). 


Conclusion. 

The  natural  conclusion  from  all  these  peculiarities  is  that 
Mark’s  Gospel,  far  from  being  an  extract  from  Matthew  or 
Luke  or  both,  as  formerly  held,1  is  a thoroughly  independent 
and  original  work,  as  has  been  proven  by  minute  investigations 
of  critics  of  different  schools  and  aims.2  It  is  in  all  its  essen- 
tial parts  a fresh,  life-like,  and  trustworthy  record  of  the  per- 
sons and  events  of  the  gospel  history  from  the  lips  of  honest 
old  Peter  and  from  the  pen  of  his  constant  attendant  and 
pupil.  Jerome  hit  it  in  the  fourth  century,  and  unbiassed  critics 
in  the  nineteenth  century  confirm  it : Peter  was  the  narrator, 
Mark  the  writer,  of  the  second  Gospel.3 

Some  have  gone  further  and  maintain  that  Mark,  “ the  inter- 
preter of  Peter,”  simply  translated  a Hebrew  Gospel  of  his 
teacher;4  but  tradition  knows  nothing  of  a Hebrew  Peter, 

1 By  Augustin,  Griesbach,  De  Wette,  Bleek,  Baur,  Davidson. 

2 As  C.  H.  Weisse,  Wilke,  Ewald,  Lange,  Holtzmann,  Bernhard  Weiss, 
Westcott,  Abbott,  Morison.  See  § 79,  p.  609. 

3 Jerome  wrote  to  Hedibia,  a pious  lady  in  Gaul  (Ep.  CXX.  c.  10,  in  Opera , 
ed.  Migne,  I.  1002):  “ Habebat  ergo  [ Paulus]  Titum  inter pretem ; sicut  et 
beatus  Petrus  Marcum , cuius  evangelium  Petro  narrante  (not  dictante ),  et  illo 
[Marco']  scribente , compositum  estV  This  letter  was  written  in  406  or  407, 
from  Bethlehem.  Morison  (p.  xxxvii)  : “ If  we  assume  the  patristic  tradi- 
tion regarding  St.  Peter’s  relation  to  St.  Mark,  we  find  the  contents  and  text- 
ure of  the  Gospel  to  be  without  a jar  at  any  point,  in  perfect  accord  with  the 
idea.” 

4 So  James  Smith  in  his  Dissertation  on  the  Origin  and  Connection  of  the 
Gospels , and  again  in  the  Dissertation  on  the  Life  and  Writings  of  St.  Luke, 


§ 81.  MARK. 


641 


while  it  speaks  of  a Hebrew  Matthew;  and  a book  is  called 
after  its  author,  not  after  its  translator.  It  is  enough  to  say, 
Peter  was  the  preacher,  Mark  the  reporter  and  editor. 

The  bearing  of  this  fact  upon  the  reliableness  of  the  Synop 
tic  record  of  the  life  of  Christ  is  self-evident.  It  leaves  no 
room  for  the  mythical  or  legendary  hypothesis.1 

Integrity  of  the  Gospel. 

The  Gospel  closes  (16  : 9-20)  with  a rapid  sketch  of  the  won- 
ders of  the  resurrection  and  ascension,  and  the  continued  mani- 
festations of  power  that  attend  the  messengers  of  Christ  in 
preaching  the  gospel  to  the  whole  creation.  This  close  is  upon 
the  whole  characteristic  of  Mark  and  presents  the  gospel  as  a 
divine  power  pervading  and  transforming  the  world,  but  it  con- 
tains some  peculiar  features,  namely : (1)  one  of  the  three  dis- 
tinct narratives  of  Christ’s  ascension  (ver.  19,  “lie  was  received 
up  into  heaven ; ” the  other  two  being  those  of  Luke  24  : 51  and 
Acts  1 : 9-11),  with  the  additional  statement  that  he  “ sat  down 
at  the  right  hand  of  God  ” (comp,  the  similar  statement,  1 Pet. 
3 : 22) ; (2)  an  emphatic  declaration  of  the  necessity  of  baptism 
for  salvation  (“he  that  belie veth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved”), 
with  the  negative  clause  that  unbelief  (i.  e .,  the  rejection  of  the 
gospel  offer  of  salvation)  condemns  (“  he  that  disbelieveth  shall 
be  condemned  ”) ; 2 (3)  the  fact  that  the  apostles  disbelieved 

prefixed  to  the  fourth  ed.  of  his  Voyage  and  Shipwreck  of  St.  Paul  (1880), 
pp.  29  sqq. 

1 “ In  substance  and  style  and  treatment,  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark  is  essentially 
a transcript  from  life.  The  course  and  the  issue  of  facts  are  imaged  in  it 
with  the  clearest  outline.  If  all  other  arguments  against  the  mythic  origin  of 
the  Evangelic  narratives  were  wanting,  this  vivid  and  simple  record,  stamped 
with  the  most  distinct  impress  of  independence  and  originality, — totally  un- 
connected with  the  symbolism  of  the  Old  Dispensation,  totally  independent  of 
the  deeper  reasonings  of  the  New, — would  be  sufficient  to  refute  a theory 
subversive  of  all  faith  in  history.  The  details  which  were  originally  addressed 
to  the  vigorous  intelligence  of  Roman  hearers  are  still  pregnant  with  instruc- 
tion for  us.  The  teaching  which  ‘ met  their  wants ' in  the  first  age,  finds  a 
corresponding  field  for  its  action  now.”  Westcott,  l.  c.,  869  (Am.  ed.). 

2 Ver.  16  : 6 mo-revo-as  (cal  £ airncr&els  crufrfi<r€Tai,  & 5e  airiaT^aas  Karcucpifrfio-eTcu. 
This  declaration  takes  the  place  of  the  command  to  baptize,  Matt.  28  : 19.  It 


642 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


the  report  of  Mary  Magdalene  until  the  risen  Lord  appeared  to 
them  personally  (vers.  11-14;  but  John  intimates  the  same, 
20  : 8,  9,  especially  in  regard  to  Thomas,  ver.  25,  and  Matthew 
mentions  that  some  doubted,  28:17;  comp.  Luke  24 : 37-41) ; 
(4)  an  authoritative  promise  of  supernatural  powers  and  signs 
which  shall  accompany  the  believers  (vers.  17,  18).  Among 
these  is  mentioned  the  pentecostal  glossolalia  under  the  unique 
name  of  speaking  with  new  tongues.1 

The  genuineness  of  this  closing  section  is  hotly  contested,  and 
presents  one  of  the  most  difficult  problems  of  textual  criticism. 
The  arguments  are  almost  equally  strong  on  both  sides,  but 
although  the  section  cannot  be  proven  to  be  a part  of  the 
original  Gospel,  it  seems  clear:  (1)  that  it  belongs  to  primi- 
tive tradition  (like  the  disputed  section  of  the  adulteress  in  John, 
cli.  8) ; and  (2)  that  Mark  cannot  have  closed  his  Gospel  with 
ver.  8 (yap)  without  intending  a more  appropriate  conclusion. 

applies  only  to  converted  believers  (6  Trurreva-as),  not  to  children  who  are  in- 
capable of  an  act  of  faith  or  unbelief,  and  yet  are  included  in  the  cove- 
nant blessing  of  Christian  parents  (comp.  1 Cor.  7 : 14).  Hence  it  is  only  posi- 
tive unbelief  which  condemns,  whether  with  or  without  baptism ; while  faith 
saves  with  baptism,  ordinarily,  but  exceptionally  also  without  baptism.  Else 
we  should  have  to  condemn  the  penitent  thief,  the  Quakers,  and  all  unbaptized 
infants.  St.  Augustin  derived  from  this  passage  and  from  John  3 : 5 (ef  vSaroi ) 
the  doctrine  of  the  absolute  and  universal  necessity  of  water-baptism  for  salva- 
tion ; and  hence  the  further  (logical,  but  not  theological)  inference  drawn  by 
the  great  and  good  bishop  of  Hippo,  with  reluctant  heart,  that  all  unbaptized 
infants  dying  in  infancy  are  forever  damned  (or,  at  least,  excluded  from  hea- 
ven), simply  on  account  of  Adam’s  sin,  before  they  were  capable  of  committing 
an  actual  transgression.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Church  to  this 
day.  Some  Calvinistic  divines  in  the  seventeenth  century  held  the  same  view 
with  regard  to  reprobate  infants  (if  there  be  such),  but  allowed  an  indefinite 
extension  of  the  number  of  elect  infants  beyond  the  confines  of  Christendom. 
Zwingli  held  that  aU,  infants  dying  in  infancy  are  saved.  Fortunately  the 
Saviour  of  mankind  has  condemned  the  dogma  horribile  of  infant  damnation 
by  his  own  conduct  toward  (unbaptized)  children,  and  his  express  declaration 
that  to  them  belongs  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  that  our  heavenly  Father 
does  not  wish  any  of  them  to  perish.  Matt.  18  : 2-6 ; 19  : 13-15 ; Mark 
10  : 13-16 ; Luke  18  : 15-17.  In  the  light  of  these  passages  we  must  explain 
John  3 : 5 and  Mark  16  : 16,  which  have  been  so  grossly  misunderstood. 

1 y\ uxraats  KaX^eovffiv  naivous.  Tischendorf  retains  kcuvcus  ; Tregelles,  West- 
cott  and  Hort  put  it  in  the  margin,  as  it  is  omitted  in  several  uncials  and 
ancient  versions. 


§ 81.  MARK. 


643 


The  result  does  not  affect  the  character  and  credibility  of  the 
Gospel.  The  section  may  be  authentic  or  correct  in  its  state- 
ments, without  being  genuine  or  written  by  Mark.  There  is 
nothing  in  it  which,  properly  understood,  does  not  harmonize 
with  apostolic  teaching. 


Note  on  the  Disputed  Close  op  Make,  Ch.  16 : 9-20. 

I.  Reasons  against  the  genuineness  : 

1.  The  section  is  wanting  altogether  in  the  two  oldest  and  most  valu- 
able uncial  manuscripts,  the  Sinaitic  ($)  and  the  Vatican  (B).  The 
latter,  it  is  true,  after  ending  the  Gospel  with  ver.  8 and  the  subscrip- 
tion KATA  MAPKON,  leaves  the  remaining  third  column  blank,  which  is 
sufficient  space  for  the  twelve  verses.  Much  account  is  made  of  this 
fact  by  Drs.  Burgon  and  Scrivener ; but  in  the  same  MS.  I find,  on  ex- 
amination of  the  fac  simile  edition,  blank  spaces  from  a few  lines  up  to 
two-thirds  and  three-fourths  of  a column,  at  the  end  of  Matthew,  John, 
Acts,  1 Pet.  (fol.  200),  1 John  (fol.  208),  Jude  (fol.  210),  Rom.  (fol.  227), 
Eph.  (fol.  262),  Col.  (fol.  272).  In  the  Old  Testament  of  B,  as  Dr.  Abbot 
has  first  noted  (in  1872),  there  are  two  blank  columns  at  the  end  of 
Nehemiah,  and  a blank  column  and  a half  at  the  end  of  Tobit.  In  any 
case  the  omission  indicates  an  objection  of  the  copyist  of  B to  the  sec- 
tion, or  its  absence  in  the  earlier  manuscript  he  used. 

I add  the  following  private  note  from  Dr.  Abbot : “ In  the  Alexan- 
drian MS.  a column  and  a third  are  left  blank  at  the  end  of  Mark,  half 
a page  at  the  end  of  John,  and  a whole  page  at  the  end  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles.  (Contrast  the  ending  of  Matthew  and  Acts.)  In  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, note  especially  in  this  MS.  Leviticus,  Isaiah,  and  the  Ep.  of 
Jeremiah,  at  the  end  of  each  of  which  half  a page  or  more  is  left  blank ; 
contrast  Jeremiah,  Baruch,  Lamentations.  There  are  similar  blanks 
at  the  end  of  Ruth,  2 Samuel,  and  Daniel,  but  the  last  leaf  of  those 
books  ends  a quaternion  or  quire  in  the  MS.  In  the  Sinaitic  MS.  more 
than  two  columns  with  the  whole  following  page  are  left  blank  at 
the  end  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  though  the  two  next  leaves  belong  to 
the  same  quaternion;  so  at  the  end  of  the  Acts  a column  and  two- 
thirds  with  the  whole  of  the  following  page ; and  at  the  end  of  Barnabas 
a column  and  a half.  These  examples  show  that  the  matter  in  ques- 
tion depended  largely  on  the  whim  of  the  copyist;  and  that  we  can 
not  infer  with  confidence  that  the  scribe  of  B knew  of  any  other  ending 
of  the  Gospel.” 

There  is  also  a shorter  conclusion,  unquestionably  spurious,  which  in 
L and  several  MSS.  of  the  iEthiopic  version  immediately  follows  ver.  8, 
and  appears  also  in  the  margin  of  274,  the  Harclean  Syriac,  and  the  best 


644 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Coptic  MS.  of  the  Gospel,  while  in  k of  the  Old  Latin  it  takes  the  place 
of  the  longer  ending.  For  details,  see  Westcott  and  Hort,  II.,  Append ., 
pp.  30,  38,  44  sq. 

2.  Eusebius  and  Jerome  state  expressly  that  the  section  was  wanting 
in  almost  all  the  Greek  copies  of  the  Gospels.  It  was  not  in  the  copy 
used  by  Victor  of  Antioch.  There  is  also  negative  patristic  evidence 
against  it,  particularly  strong  in  the  case  of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Tertul- 
lian,  and  Cyprian,  who  had  special  occasion  to  quote  it  (see  Westcott 
and  Hort,  II.,  Append .,  pp.  30-38).  Jerome’s  statement,  however,  is 
weakened  by  the  fact  that  he  seems  to  depend  upon  Eusebius,  and  that 
he  himself  translated  the  passage  in  his  Vulgate. 

3.  It  is  wanting  in  the  important  MS.  k representing  the  African 
text  of  the  Old  Latin  version,  which  has  a different  conclusion  (like  that 
in  L),  also  in  some  of  the  best  MSS.  of  the  Armenian  version,  while  in 
others  it  follows  the  usual  subscription.  It  is  also  wanting  in  an  unpub- 
lished Arabic  version  (made  from  the  Greek)  in  the  Vatican  Library, 
which  is  likewise  noteworthy  for  reading  os  in  1 Tim.  3 : 16. 

4.  The  way  in  which  the  section  begins,  and  in  which  it  refers  to 
Mary  Magdalene,  give  it  the  air  of  a conclusion  derived  from  some  ex- 
traneous source.  It  does  not  record  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  in 
ver.  7.  It  uses  (ver.  9)  77730)177  ^afifidrov  for  the  Hebraistic  177  /ita  rltv 
aa^drcov  of  16  : 2.  It  has  many  words  or  phrases  ( e.g .,  n opevofiai  used 
three  times)  not  elsewhere  found  in  Mark,  which  strengthen  the  impres- 
sion that  we  are  dealing  with  a different  writer,  and  it  lacks  Mark’s 
usual  graphic  detail.  But  the  argument  from  difference  of  style  and 
vocabulary  has  been  overstrained,  and  can  not  be  regarded  as  in  itself 
decisive. 

II.  Arguments  in  favor  of  the  genuineness  : 

1.  The  section  is  found  in  most  of  the  uncial  MSS.,  ACD  X r A 2, 
in  all  the  late  uncials  (in  L as  a secondary  reading),  and  in  all  the 
cursive  MSS.,  including  1,  33,  69,  etc. ; though  a number  of  the  cursives 
either  mark  it  with  an  asterisk  or  note  its  omission  in  older  copies. 
Hence  the  statements  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome  seem  to  need  some 
qualification.  In  22  (as  Dr.  Burgon  has  first  pointed  out)  the  liturgical 
word  Te'Xor,  denoting  the  end  of  a reading  lesson,  is  inserted  after  both 
ver.  8 and  ver.  20,  while  no  such  word  is  placed  at  the  end  of  the  other 
Gospels.  This  shows  that  there  were  two  endings  of  Mark  in  different 
copies. 

2.  Also  in  most  of  the  ancient  versions,  the  Itala  (with  the  exception 
of  “k,”  or  the  codex  Bobbiensis,  used  by  Columban),  the  Vulgate,  the 
Curetonian  Syriac  (last  part),  the  Peshito,  the  Philoxenian,  the  Coptic, 
the  Gothic  (first  part),  and  the  ^Ethiopic,  but  in  several  MSS.  only 
after  the  spurious  shorter  conclusion.  Of  these  versions  the  Itala,  the 
Curetonian  and  Peshito  Syriac,  and  the  Coptic,  are  older  than  any  of 
our  Greek  codices,  but  the  MSS.  of  the  Coptic  are  not  older  than  the 


81.  MARK. 


645 


twelfth  or  tenth  century,  and  may  have  undergone  changes  as  well  as 
the  Greek  MSS. ; and  the  MSS.  of  the  iEtliiopic  are  all  modern.  The 
best  MSS.  of  the  old  Latin  are  mutilated  here.  The  only  extant  frag- 
ment of  Mark  in  the  Curetonian  Syriac  is  vv.  17-20,  so  that  we  cannot 
tell  whether  vv.  9-20  immediately  followed  ver.  8,  or  appeared  as  they 
do  in  cod.  L.  But  Aphraates  quotes  it. 

3.  In  all  the  existing  Greek  and  Syriac  lectionaries  or  evangeliaries 
and  synaxaries,  as  far  as  examined,  which  contain  the  Scripture  reading 
lessons  for  the  churches.  Dr.  Burgon  lays  great  stress  on  their  testi- 
mony (ch.  X.),  but  he  overrates  their  antiquity.  The  lection-systems 
cannot  be  traced  beyond  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  when  great 
liturgical  changes  took  place.  At  that  time  the  disputed  verses  were 
widely  circulated  and  eagerly  seized  as  a suitable  resurrection  and 
ascension  lesson. 

4.  Irenseus  of  Lyons,  in  the  second  half  of  the  second  century, 
long  before  Eusebius,  expressly  quotes  verse  19  as  a part  of  the  Gospel 
of  Mark  ( Adv . Hcer .,  III.  10,  6).  The  still  earlier  testimony  of  Justin 
Martyr  (Apol.,  I.  45)  is  doubtful.  (The  quotation  of  vers.  17  and  18  in 
lib.  viii.,  c.  1 of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  is  wrongly  ascribed  to  Hip- 
polytus.)  Marinus,  Macarius  Magnes  (or  at  least  the  heathen  writer 
whom  he  cites),  Didymus,  Chrysostom  (??),  Epiphanius,  Nestorius,  the 
apocryphal  Gesta  Pilati,  Ambrose,  Augustin,  and  other  later  fathers 
quote  from  the  section. 

5.  A strong  intrinsic  argument  is  derived  from  the  fact  that  Mark 
cannot  intentionally  have  concluded  his  Gospel  with  the  words  t(po(3ovvro 
ydp  (16  : 8).  He  must  either  have  himself  written  the  last  verses  or 
some  other  conclusion,  which  was  accidently  lost  before  the  book  was 
multiplied  by  transcription ; or  he  was  unexpectedly  prevented  from 
finishing  his  book,  and  the  conclusion  was  supplied  by  a friendly  hand 
from  oral  tradition  or  some  written  source. 

In  view  of  these  facts  the  critics  and  exegetes  are  very  much  divided 
The  passage  is  defended  as  genuine  by  Simon,  Mill,  Bengel,  Storr, 
Matthsei,  Hug,  Schleiermacher,  De  Wette,  Bleek,  Olshausen,  Lange, 
Ebrard,  Hilgenfeld,  Broadus  (“Bapt.  Quarterly,”  Philad.,  1869),  Bur- 
gon (1871),  Scrivener,  Wordsworth,  McClellan,  Cook,  Morison  (1882). 
It  is  rejected  or  questioned  by  the  critical  editors,  Griesbach,  Lachmann, 
Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  Alford,  Westcott  and  Hort  (though  retained  by 
all  in  the  text  with  or  without  brackets),  and  by  such  critics  and  com- 
mentators as  Fritzsche,  Credner,  Reuss,  Wieseler,  Holtzmann,  Keim, 
Scholten,  Klostermann,  Ewald,  Meyer,  Weiss,  Norton,  Davidson.  Some 
of  these  opponents,  however,  while  denying  the  composition  of  the  sec- 
tion by  Mark,  regard  the  contents  as  a part  of  the  apostolic  tradition. 
Michelsen  surrenders  only  vers.  9-14,  and  saves  vers.  15-20.  Ewald  and 
Holtzmann  conjecture  the  original  conclusion  from  vers.  9,  10,  and  16- 
20;  Yolkmar  invents  one  from  elements  of  all  the  Synoptists. 


G46 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


III.  Solutions  of  the  problem.  All  mere  conjectures;  certainty  is 
impossible  in  this  case. 

1.  Mark  himself  added  the  section  in  a later  edition,  issued  perhaps 
in  Alexandria,  having  been  interrupted  in  Rome  just  as  he  came  to 
16  : 8,  either  by  Peter’s  imprisonment  and  martyrdom,  or  by  sickness,  or 
some  accident.  Incomplete  copies  got  into  circulation  before  he  was 
able  to  finish  the  book.  So  Michaelis,  Hug,  and  others. 

2.  The  original  conclusion  of  Mark  was  lost  by  some  accident,  most 
probably  from  the  original  autograph  (where  it  may  have  occupied  a 
separate  leaf),  and  the  present  paragraph  was  substituted  by  an  anony- 
mous editor  or  collector  in  the  second  century.  So  Griesbach,  Schult- 
hess,  David  Schulz. 

3.  Luke  wrote  the  section.  So  Hitzig  {Johannes  Marcus , p.  187). 

4.  Godet  (in  his  Com.  on  Luke , p.  8 and  p.  513,  Engl,  transl.)  modi- 
fies this  hypothesis  by  assuming  that  a third  hand  supplied  the  close, 
partly  from  Luke’s  Gospel,  which  had  appeared  in  the  mean  time,  and 
partly  (vers.  17  and  18)  from  another  source.  He  supposes  that  Mark 
was  interrupted  by  the  unexpected  outbreak  of  the  Neronian  persecu- 
tion in  64  and  precipitously  fled  from  the  capital,  leaving  his  unfinished 
Gospel  behind,  which  was  afterward  completed  when  Luke’s  Gospel 
appeared.  In  this  way  Godet  accounts  for  the  fact  that  up  to  Mark 
16  : 8 Luke  had  no  influence  on  Mark,  while  such  influence  is  apparent 
in  the  concluding  section. 

5.  It  was  the  end  of  one  of  the  lost  Gospel  fragments  used  by  Luke 
(1 : 1),  and  appended  to  Mark’s  by  the  last  redactor.  Ewald. 

6.  The  section  is  from  the  pen  of  Mark,  but  was  purposely  omitted  by 
some  scribe  in  the  third  century  from  hierarchical  prejudice,  because  it 
represents  the  apostles  in  an  unfavorable  light  after  the  resurrection,  so 
that  the  Lord  “ upbraided  them  with  their  unbelief  and  hardness  of 
heart”  (ver.  14).  Lange  ( Leben  Jesu,  I.  166).  Unlikely. 

7.  The  passage  is  genuine,  but  was  omitted  in  some  valuable  copy 

by  a misunderstanding  of  the  word  reW,  which  often  is  found  after 
ver.  8 in  cursives.  So  Burgon.  “According  to  the  Western  order,” 
he  says  (in  the  “Quarterly  Review”  for  Oct.,  1881),  “S.  Mark  occu- 
pies the  last  place.  From  the  earliest  period  it  had  been  customary  to 
write  tc\os  (The  Ento)  after  the  8th  verse  of  his  last  chapter,  in  token 
that  there  a famous  ecclesiastical  lection  comes  to  a close.  Let  the  last 
leaf  of  one  very  ancient  archetypal  copy  have  begun  at  ver.  9,  and  let 
that  last  leaf  have  perished ; — and  all  is  plain.  A faithful  copyist  will 
have  ended  the  Gospel  perforce — as  B and  have  done — at  S.  Mark 

16  : 8.”  But  this  liturgical  mark  is  not  old  enough  to  explain  the 
omission  in  B,  and  the  MSS.  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome  ; and  a reading 
lesson  would  close  as  abruptly  with  yap  as  the  Gospel  itself. 

8.  The  passage  cannot  claim  any  apostolic  authority ; but  it  is  doubt- 
less founded  on  some  tradition  of  the  apostolic  age.  Its  authorship  and 


§ 81.  MARK. 


647 


precise  date  must  remain  unknown,  but  it  is  apparently  older  than  the 
time  when  the  canonical  Gospels  were  generally  received ; for  although 
it  has  points  of  contact  with  them  all,  it  contains  no  attempt  to  harmo- 
nize their  various  representations  of  the  course  of  events.  So  Dr.  Hort 
(II.,  Appendix , 51).  A similar  view  was  held  by  Dean  Alford. 

For  full  information  we  refer  to  the  critical  apparatus  of  Tischendorf 
and  Tregelles,  to  the  monograph  of  Weiss  on  Mark  ( Das  Marcusevang., 
pp.  512-515),  and  especially  to  the  exhaustive  discussion  of  Westcott 
and  Hort  in  the  second  volume  (Append.,  pp.  29-51).  The  most  elabor- 
ate vindication  of  the  genuineness  is  by  Dean  Burgon  : The  Last  Twelve 
Verses  of  the  Gospel  according  to  S.  Mark  Vindicated  against  Recent  Critical 
Objections  and  Established  (Oxford  and  Lond.,  1871,  334  pages),  a very 
learned  book,  but  marred  by  its  over-confident  tone  and  unreasonable 
hostility  to  the  oldest  uncial  MSS.  (!$  and  B)  and  the  most  meritorious 
textual  critics  (Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Tregelles).  For  other  able  de- 
fences see  Dr.  Scrivener  ( Introd . to  the  Criticism  of  the  New  Test.,  3d  ed., 
1883,  pp.  583-590),  Dr.  Morison  [Com.  on  Mark,  pp.  446  and  463  sqq.), 
and  Canon  Cook  (in  Speaker’s  Com.  on  Mark,  pp.  301-308). 

Lachmann  gives  the  disputed  section,  according  to  his  principle  to  fur- 
nish the  text  as  found  in  the  fourth  century,  but  did  not  consider  it 
genuine  (see  his  article  in  “ Studien  und  Kritiken”  for  1830,  p.  843). 
Tischendorf  and  Tregelles  set  the  twelve  verses  apart.  Alford  incloses 
them  in  single  brackets,  Westcott  and  Hort  in  double  brackets,  as  an 
eirly  interpolation ; the  Revised  Version  of  1881  retains  them  with  a 
marginal  note,  and  with  a space  between  vers.  8 and  9.  Dean  Burgon 
(“  Quarterly  Rev.”  for  Oct.,  1881)  holds  this  note  of  the  Revision  (which 
simply  states  an  acknowledged  fact)  to  be  “ the  gravest  blot  of  all,”  and 
triumphantly  refers  the  critical  editors  and  Revisionists  to  his  “ sepa- 
rate treatise  extending  over  300  pages,  which  for  the  best  of  reasons  has 
never  yet  been  answered,”  and  in  which  he  has  “demonstrated,”  as 
he  assures  us,  that  the  last  twelve  verses  in  Mark  are  “as  trustworthy  as 
any  other  verses  which  can  be  named.”  The  infallible  organ  in  the 
Vatican  seems  to  have  a formidable  rival  in  Chichester,  but  they  are  in 
irreconcilable  conflict  on  the  true  reading  of  the  angelic  anthem  (Luke 
2 : 14) : the  Pope  chanting  with  the  Vulgate  the  genitive  (cvdoidas,  bonce, 
voluntatis ),  the  Dean,  in  the  same  article,  denouncing  this  as  a “ grievous 
perversion  of  the  truth  of  Scripture,”  and  holding  the  evidence  for 
the  nominative  (evboKia)  to  be  “ absolutely  decisive,”  as  if  the  combined 
testimony  of  !$*  A B D,  Irenaeus,  Origen  (lat.),  Jerome,  all  the  Latin 
MSS.,  and  the  Latin  Gloria  in  Excelsis  were  of  no  account,  as  compared 
with  his  judgment  or  preference. 


648 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


§ 82.  Inihe. 

**  Lucas,  Evangelii  et  medicince  munera  pandens  ; 

Artibus  hinc , Mine  religione , valet : 

Utilis  ille  labor,  per  quem  vixere  tot  cegri ; 

Utilior , per  quem  tot  didicere  moril  ” 

Critical  and  Biographical. 

Schleiermacher  : TJeber  die  Schriften  des  Lukas.  Berlin,  1817.  Reprinted 
in  the  second  vol.  of  his  Sdmmtliche  Werke , Berlin,  1836  (pp.  1-220). 
Translated  by  Bishop  Thiblwall,  London,  1825. 

James  Smith  (of  Jordanhill,  d.  1867) : Dissertation  on  the  Life  and  Writ- 
ings of  St.  Luke,  prefixed  to  his  Voyage  and  Shipwreck  of  St.  Paul 
(1848),  4th  ed.,  revised  by  Walter  E.  Smith,  London,  1880  (pp.  293). 
A most  important  monograph,  especially  for  the  historical  accuracy 
and  credibility  of  the  Acts,  by  an  expert  in  navigation  and  an  able 
scholar. 

E.  Renan  : Les  fivangiles.  Paris,  1877.  Ch.  XIX.,  pp.  435-448. 

Th.  Keim  : Aus  dem  Urchristenthum.  Zliricli,  1878,  Josephus  im  N.  T., 
pp.  1-27.  An  unsuccessful  attempt  to  prove  that  Luke  used 
Josephus  in  his  chronological  statement,  3 : 1,  2.  Keim  assumes 
that  the  third  Gospel  was  written  after  the  “Jewish  war”  of  Jose- 
phus (about  75-78),  and  possibly  after  his  “Antiquities”  (a.d.  94), 
though  in  his  Geschichte  Jesu  (I.  71)  he  assigns  the  composition  of 
Luke  to  a.d.  90. 

Scholten  : Das  Paulinische  Evangelium,  transl.  from  the  Dutch  by 
Redepenning.  Elberf.,  1881. 

The  Ancient  Testimonies  on  the  Genuineness  of  Luke,  see  in  Charteris 
(Kirchhofer) : Canonicity,  Edinb.,  1880,  pp.  154-166. 

On  the  relation  of  Luke  toMarcion,  see  especially  Volkmar  : Das  Evan- 
gelium Marcions,  Leipz.,  1852,  and  Sand  ay  : The  Gospels  in  the  Sec- 
ond Century,  London,  1876  (and  his  article  in  the  “Fortnightly 
Review  ” for  June,  1875). 

Exegetical. 

Commentaries  by  Origen  (in  Jerome’s  Latin  translation,  with  a few 
Greek  fragments),  Eusebius  (fragments),  Cyril  of  Alexandria 
(Syriac  Version  with  translation,  ed.  by  Dean  Smith,  Oxf.,  1858 
and  1859),  Euthymius  Zigabenus,  Theophybact. — Modern  Com. : 
Bornemann  (Scholia  in  Luc.  Ev.,  1830),  De  Wette  (Mark  and  Luke, 
3d  ed.,  1846),  Meyer  (Mark  and  Luke,  6th  ed.,  revised  by  B.  Weiss, 
1878),  James  Thomson  (Edinb.,  1851,  3 vols.),  J.  J.  Van  Oosterzee  (in 
Lange,  3d  ed.,  1867,  Engl.  ed.  by  Schaff  and  Starbuck,  N.  Y.,  1866), 
Fr.  Godet  (one  of  the  very  best,  2d  French  ed.,  1870,  Engl,  transl. 


§ 82.  LUKE. 


649 


by  Shalders  and  CnBin,  Edinb.,  1875,  2 vok.,  reprinted  in  N.  Y., 
1881),  Bishop  W.  B.  Jones  (in  Speaker’s  Com.y  Lond.  and  N.  Y., 
1878),  E.  H.  Plumptre  (in  Bp.  Ellicott’s  Com.  for  English  Readers , 
Lond.,  1879),  Frederick  W.  Farrar  (Cambridge,  1880),  Matthew 
B.  Biddle  (1882). 


Life  of  Luke. 

As  Mark  is  inseparably  associated  with  Peter,  so  is  Luke  with 
Paul.  There  was,  in  both  cases,  a foreordained  correspondence 
and  congeniality  between  the  apostle  and  the  historian  or  co- 
laborer. We  find  such  holy  and  useful  friendships  in  the  great 
formative  epochs  of  the  church,  notably  so  in  the  time  of  the 
Reformation,  between  Luther  and  Melanchthon,  Zwingli  and 
Oecolampadius,  Calvin  and  Beza,  Cranmer,  Latimer  and  Bid- 
ley  ; and  at  a later  period  between  the  two  Wesleys  and  White- 
field.  Mark,  the  Hebrew  Roman  “interpreter”  of  the  Galilsean 
fisherman,  gave  us  the  shortest,  freshest,  but  least  elegant  and 
literary  of  the  Gospels ; Luke,  the  educated  Greek,  “ the  beloved 
physician,”  and  faithful  companion  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  composed 
the  longest  and  most  literary  Gospel,  and  connected  it  wfith  the 
great  events  in  secular  history  under  the  reigns  of  Augustus 
and  his  successors.  If  the  former  was  called  the  Gospel  of 
Peter  by  the  ancients,  the  latter,  in  a less  direct  sense,  may  be 
called  the  Gospel  of  Paul,  for  its  agreement  in  spirit  with  the 
teaching  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  In  their  accounts  of 
the  institution  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  there  is  even  a verbal  agree- 
ment which  points  to  the  same  source  of  information.  Ho 
doubt  there  was  frequent  conference  between  the  two,  but  no 
allusion  is  made  to  each  other’s  writings,  which  tends  to  prove 
that  they  were  composed  independently  during  the  same  period, 
or  not  far  apart.1 

Luke  nowhere  mentions  his  name  in  the  two  books  which  are 

1 Origen,  Eusebius,  and  Jerome  erroneously  supposed  that  Paul  meant  the 
written  Gospel  of  Luke  when  he  speaks  of  “ my  gospel,”  Rom.  2:16;  16  : 25 ; 
2 Tim.  2 : 8.  The  word  gospel  is  not  used  in  the  New  Test,  in  the  sense  of  a 
written  record,  except  in  the  titles  which  are  of  post-apostolic  date  ; and  the 
preface  of  Luke  is  inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  he  composed  his  work  under 
the  direction  of  any  one  man. 


650 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


by  the  unanimous  consent  of  antiquity  ascribed  to  him,  and  beai 
all  the  marks  of  the  same  authorship ; but  he  is  modestly  con- 
cealed under  the  “ we  ” of  a great  portion  of  the  Acts,  which  is 
but  a continuation  of  the  third  Gospel.1  He  is  honorably  and 
affectionately  mentioned  three  times  by  Paul  during  his  im- 
prisonment, as  “ the  beloved  physician  ” (Col.  4 : 14),  as  one  of 
his  “fellow-laborers”  (Philem.  24),  and  as  the  most  faithful 
friend  who  remained  with  him  when  friend  after  friend  had 
deserted  him  (2  Tim.  4:11).  His  medical  profession,  although 
carried  on  frequently  by  superior  slaves,  implies  some  degree 
of  education  and  accounts  for  the  accuracy  of  his  medical  terms 
and  description  of  diseases.2  It  gave  him  access  to  many  fami- 
lies of  social  position,  especially  in  the  East,  where  physicians 
are  rare.  It  made  him  all  the  more  useful  to  Paul  in  the  in- 
firmities of  his  flesh  and  his  exhausting  labors.3 

He  was  a Gentile  by  birth,4  though  he  may  have  become  a 
proselyte  of  the  gate.  His  nationality  and  antecedents  are  un- 
known. lie  was  probably  a Syrian  of  Antioch,  and  one  of  the 
earliest  converts  in  that  mother  church  of  Gentile  Christianity.5 
This  conjecture  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  he  gives  us  much 

1 The  name  A ovitas,  Lucas,  is  abridged  from  Aovkolv6%,  Lucanus  or  Lucilivs 
(as  Apollos  from  Apollonius,  Silas  from  Silvanus).  It  is  not  to  be  confounded 
with  Lucius,  Acts  13  : 1 ; Rom.  16  : 21.  The  name  was  not  common,  but  con- 
tractions in  as  were  frequent  in  the  names  of  slaves,  as  Lobeck  observes.  Dr. 
Plumptre  (in  his  Com. ) ingeniously  conjectures  that  Luke  was  from  the  region 
of  Lucania  in  Southern  Italy,  and  called  after  the  famous  poet,  M.  Annaeus 
Lucanus,  as  his  freedman.  In  this  way  he  accounts  for  Luke’s  familiarity 
with  Italian  localities  (Acts  28  : 13-15),  the  favor  of  the  uncle  of  Lucanus, 
J.  Annaeus  Gallio,  shown  to  Paul  (18  : 14-17),  the  tradition  of  the  friendship 
between  Paul  and  Seneca  (a  brother  of  Gallio),  and  the  intended  journey  of 
Paul  to  Spain  (Rom.  15  : 28),  where  Seneca  and  Lucanus  were  born  (at  Cor- 
duba).  But  the  chronology  is  against  this  hypothesis.  Lucanus  was  born 
A.D.  39,  when  Luke  must  have  been  already  about  thirty  years  of  age,  as  he 
cannot  have  been  much  younger  than  Paul. 

2 Jerome  (Ep.  ad  Paulinum)  says  of  Luke  : “ Fuit  medicus , et  pariter  omnia 
verba  illius  animce  languentis  sunt  medicines .” 

8 Comp.  Gal.  4 : 13  ; 2 Cor.  1 : 9 ; 4 : 10,  12,  16  ; 12  : 7. 

4 He  is  distinguished  from  “those  of  the  circumcision,”  Col.  4:14;  comp.  11. 

5 Eusebius,  III.  4 : A ovicas  rb  yivos  &v  ruv  Slit  ’A vtiox*1<*s,  r)]u  ^7ri<7T^u7jr 
5c  larpSs,  k r.  A.  Jerome,  I)e  vir.  ill.,  7:  “ Lucas  medicus  Antiochensis  . . 
sectator  apostoli  Pauli,  et  omnis  peregrinationis  ejus  comes. 


§ 82.  LUKE. 


651 


information  about  tho  church  in  Antioch  (Acts  11:19-30; 
13  : 1-3 ; 15  : 1-3,  22-35),  that  he  traces  the  origin  of  the  name 
“Christians”  to  that  city  (11  : 19),  and  that  in  enumerating  the 
seven  deacons  of  Jerusalem  he  informs  us  of  the  Antiochian 
origin  of  Nicolas  (6  : 5),  without  mentioning  the  nationality  of 
any  of  the  others.1 

We  meet  Luke  first  as  a companion  of  Paul  at  Troas,  when, 
after  the  Macedonian  call,  “ Come  over  and  help  us,”  he  was 
about  to  carry  the  gospel  to  Greece  on  his  second  great  mission- 
ary tour.  For  from  that  important  epoch  Luke  uses  the  first 
personal  pronoun  in  the  plural:  “When  he  [Paul]  had  seen 
the  vision,  straightway  we  sought  to  go  forth  into  Macedonia, 
concluding  that  God  had  called  us  to  preach  the  gospel  unto 
them  ” (Acts  16  : 10).  He  accompanied  him  to  Philippi  and 
seems  to  have  remained  there  after  the  departure  of  Paul  and 
Silas  for  Corinth  (a.d.  51),  in  charge  of  the  infant  church ; for 
the  “ we  ” is  suddenly  replaced  by  “ they  ” (17  : 1).  Seven  years 
later  (a.d.  58)  he  joined  the  apostle  again,  when  he  passed  through 
Philippi  on  his  last  journey  to  Jerusalem,  stopping  a week  at 
Troas  (Acts  20  : 5,  6) ; for  from  that  moment  Luke  resumes  the 
“we”  of  the  narrative.  He  was  with  Paul  or  near  him  at 
Jerusalem  and  two  years  at  Caesarea,  accompanied  him  on  his 
perilous  voyage  to  Pome,  of  which  he  gives  a most  accurate 
account,  and  remained  with  him  to  the  end  of  his  first  Poman 
captivity,  with  which  he  closes  his  record  (a.d.  63).  He  may, 
however,  have  been  temporarily  absent  on  mission  work  during 
the  four  years  of  Paul’s  imprisonment.  Whether  he  accom- 
panied him  on  his  intended  visit  to  Spain  and  to  the  East,  after 
the  year  63,  we  do  not  know.  The  last  allusion  to  him  is  the 
word  of  Paul  when  on  the  point  of  martyrdom : “ Only  Luke  is 
with  me”  (2  Tim.  4 : 11). 

The  Bible  leaves  Luke  at  the  height  of  his  usefulness  in  the 

1 James  Smith  (J.c.,  p.  4)  illustrates  the  argumentative  bearing  of  this  notice 
by  the  fact  that  of  eight  accounts  of  the  Russian  campaign  of  1812,  three  by 
French,  three  by  English,  and  two  by  Scotch  authors  (Scott  and  Alison),  the 
last  two  only  make  mention  of  the  Scotch  extraction  of  the  Russian  General 
Barclay  de  Tolly. 


652 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


best  company,  with  Paul  preaching  the  gospel  in  the  metropo- 
lis of  the  world. 

Post-apostolic  tradition,  always  far  below  the  healthy  and 
certain  tone  of  the  New  Testament,  mostly  vague  and  often 
contradictory,  never  reliable,  adds  that  he  lived  to  the  age  of 
eighty -four,  labored  in  several  countries,  was  a painter  of  por- 
traits of  Jesus,  of  the  Virgin,  and  the  apostles,  and  that  he  was 
crucified  on  an  olive-tree  at  Elsea  in  Greece.  His  real  or  sup- 
posed remains,  together  with  those  of  Andrew  the  apostle,  were 
transferred  from  Patrse  in  Achaia  to  the  Church  of  the  Apostles 
in  Constantinople.1 

The  symbolic  poetry  of  the  Church  assigns  to  him  the  sacri- 
ficial ox ; but  the  symbol  of  man  is  more  appropriate ; for  his 
Gospel  is  par  excellence  the  Gospel  of  the  Son  of  Man. 

Sources  of  Information. 

According  to  his  own  confession  in  the  preface,  Luke  was  no 
eye-witness  of  the  gospel  history,2  but  derived  his  information 
from  oral  reports  of  primitive  disciples,  and  from  numerous 
fragmentary  documents  then  already  in  circulation.  He  wrote 
the  Gospel  from  what  he  had  heard  and  read,  the  Acts  from 
what  he  had  seen  and  heard.  He  traced  the  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity “ accurately  from  the  beginning.” 

His  opportunities  were  the  very  best.  He  visited  the  princi- 
pal apostolic  churches  between  Jerusalem  and  Pome,  and  came 
in  personal  contact  with  the  founders  and  leaders.  He  met 
Peter,  Mark,  and  Barnabas  at  Antioch,  James  and  his  elders  at 
Jerusalem  (on  Paul’s  last  visit),  Philip  and  his  daughters  at 
Caesarea,  the  early  converts  in  Greece  and  Pome ; and  he  en- 
joyed, besides,  the  benefit  of  all  the  information  which  Paul 
himself  had  received  by  revelation  or  collected  from  personal 
intercourse  with  his  fellow-apostles  and  other  primitive  disciples. 

1 Jerome,  De  vir.  ill.,  7 : “ Sepultus  est  Constantinopoli , ad  quam  urbem 
vicesimo  Constantii  anno  ossa  ejus  cum  reliquiis  Andrece  apostoli  translata 
sunt  A 

- Hence  the  ancient  tradition  that  he  was  one  of  the  Seventy  Disciples,  or 
one  of  the  two  disciples  of  Emmaus,  cannot  be  true. 


§ 82.  LUKE. 


653 


The  sources  for  the  history  of  the  infancy  were  Jewish-Chris- 
tian  and  Aramaean  (hence  the  strongly  Hebraizing  coloring  of 
the  first  two  chapters);  his  information  of  the  activity  of 
Christ  in  Samaria  was  probably  derived  from  Philip,  who 
labored  there  as  an  evangelist  and  afterwards  in  Caesarea.  But 
a man  of  Luke’s  historic  instinct  and  conscientiousness  would 
be  led  to  visit  also  in  person  the  localities  in  Galilee  which 
are  immortalized  by  the  ministry  of  Christ.  From  Jerusalem 
or  Caesarea  he  could  reach  them  all  in  three  or  four  days. 

The  question  whether  Luke  also  used  one  or  both  of  the  other 
Synoptic  Gospels  has  already  been  discussed  in  a previous  sec- 
tion. It  is  improbable  that  he  included  them  among  his  evi- 
dently fragmentary  sources  alluded  to  in  the  preface.  It  is 
certain  that  he  had  no  knowledge  of  our  Greek  Matthew ; on 
the  use  of  a lost  Hebrew  Matthew  and  of  Mark  the  opinion 
of  good  scholars  is  divided,  but  the  resemblance  with  Mark, 
though  very  striking  in  some  sections,1 2  is  not  of  such  a charac- 
ter that  it  cannot  as  well,  and  even  better,  be  explained  from 
prior  oral  tradition  or  autoptical  memoirs,  especially  if  we  con* 
sider  that  the  resemblances  are  neutralized  by  unaccountable 
differences  and  omissions.  The  matter  is  not  helped  by  a refer- 
ence to  a proto-Mark,  either  Hebrew  or  Greek,  of  which  we 
know  nothing. 

Luke  has  a great  deal  of  original  and  most  valuable  matter, 
which  proves  his  independence  and  the  variety  of  his  sources. 
He  adds  much  to  our  knowledge  of  the  Saviour,  and  surpasses 
Matthew  and  Mark  in  fulness,  accuracy,  and  chronological  order 
— three  points  which,  with  all  modesty,  he  claims  to  have  aimed 
at  in  his  preface.3  Sometimes  he  gives  special  fitness  and 

1 As  the  account  of  the  stilling  of  the  tempest.  Luke  8 : 22-25,  compared 
with  Mark  4 : 85-41 ; and  the  parable  of  the  wicked  husbandmen,  Luke  20  : 9- 
19,  compared  with  Mark  12  : 1-12. 

2 1 : 3 : iraaiv — aKpiflws — Ka&e$rj$.  Says  Godet  : “Matthew  groups  together 
doctrinal  teachings  in  the  form  of  great  discourses  ; he  is  a preacher.  Mark 
narrates  events  as  they  occur  to  his  mind  ; he  is  a chronicler.  Luke  repro- 
duces the  external  and  internal  development  of  events ; he  is  the  historian, 

properly  so  called,” 


654 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


beauty  to  a word  of  Christ  by  inserting  it  in  its  proper  place 
in  the  narrative,  and  connecting  it  with  a particular  occasion. 
But  there  are  some  exceptions,  where  Matthew  is  fuller,  and 
where  Mark  is  more  chronological.  Considering  the  fact  that 
about  thirty  years  had  elapsed  since  the  occurrence  of  the  events, 
we  need  not  wonder  that  some  facts  and  words  were  dislocated, 
and  that  Luke,  with  all  his  honest  zeal,  did  not  always  succeed 
in  giving  the  original  order. 

The  peculiar  sections  of  Luke  are  in  keeping  with  the  rest. 
They  have  not  the  most  remote  affinity  with  apocryphal  mar- 
vels and  fables,  nor  even  with  the  orthodox  traditions  and 
legends  of  the  post-apostolic  age,  but  are  in  full  harmony  with 
the  picture  of  Christ  as  it  shines  from  the  other  Gospels  and 
from  the  Epistles.  His  accuracy  has  been  put  to  the  severest 
test,  especially  in  the  Acts,  where  he  frequently  alludes  to 
secular  rulers  and  events ; but  while  a few  chronological  diffi- 
culties, as  that  of  the  census  of  Quirinius,  are  not  yet  satisfac- 
torily removed,  he  has  upon  the  whole,  even  in  minute  particu- 
lars, been  proven  to  be  a faithful,  reliable,  and  well  informed 
historian. 

He  is  the  proper  father  of  Christian  church  history,  and  a 
model  well  worthy  of  imitation  for  his  study  of  the  sources,  his 
conscientious  accuracy,  his  modesty  and  his  lofty  aim  to  in- 
struct and  confirm  in  the  truth. 

Dedication  and  Object. 

The  third  Gospel,  as  well  as  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  is  dedi- 
cated to  a certain  Theophilus  ( i.e .,  Friend  of  God),  a man  of 
social  distinction,  perhaps  in  the  service  of  the  government,  as 
appears  from  his  title  “ honorable”  or  “most  noble.”  1 He  was 

1 Luke  1:4:  Kpincrre  &ei(pi\e.  In  Acts  1 : 1 the  epithet  is  omitted.  Bengel 
infers  from  this  omission  that  when  Luke  wrote  the  Acts  he  was  on  more 
familiar  terms  with  Theophilus.  The  same  title  is  applied  to  Governors  Felix 
and  Festus,  Acts  23  : 26;  24  : 3;  26  : 25.  The  A.  V.  varies  between  “most 
excellent  ’’  and  “ most  noble;  ” the  R.  V.  uniformly  renders  “ most  excellent,” 
which  is  apt  to  be  applied  to  moral  character  rather  than  social  position. 
“Honorable”  or  “most  noble”  would  be  preferable.  Occasionally,  however, 
the  term  is  used  also  towards  a personal  friend  (see  passages  in  Wetstein). 


§ 82.  LUKE. 


655 


either  a convert  or  at  least  a catechumen  in  preparation  for 
church  membership,  and  willing  to  become  sponsor  and  patron 
of  these  books.  The  custom  of  dedicating  books  to  princes  and 
rich  friends  of  literature  was  formerly  very  frequent,  and  has 
not  died  out  yet.  As  to  his  race  and  residence  we  can  only 
conjecture  that  Theophilus  was  a Greek  of  Antioch,  where 
Luke,  himself  probably  an  Antiocliean,  may  have  previously 
known  him  either  as  his  freedman  or  physician.  The  pseudo- 
Clementine  Recognitions  mention  a certain  nobleman  of  that 
name  at  Antioch  who  was  converted  by  Peter  and  changed  his 
palace  into  a church  and  residence  of  the  apostle.1 

The  object  of  Luke  was  to  confirm  Theophilus  and  through 
him  all  his  readers  in  the  faith  in  which  he  had  already  been 
orally  instructed,  and  to  lead  him  to  the  conviction  of  the  irre- 
fragable certainty  of  the  facts  on  which  Christianity  rests.3 

Luke  wrote  for  Gentile  Christians,  especially  Greeks,  as  Mat- 
thew wrote  for  Jews,  Mark  for  Romans,  John  for  advanced 
believers  without  distinction  of  nationality.  He  briefly  explains 
for  Gentile  readers  the  position  of  Palestinian  towns,  as  Haza- 
reth,  Capernaum,  Arimathsea,  and  the  distance  of  Mount  Olivet 
and  Emmaus  from  Jerusalem.3  lie  does  not,  like  Matthew, 
look  back  to  the  past  and  point  out  the  fulfilment  of  ancient 
prophecy  with  a view  to  prove  that  Jesus  of  Hazareth  is  the 
promised  Messiah,  but  takes  a universal  view  of  Christ  as  the 
Saviour  of  all  men  and  fulfiller  of  the  aspirations  of  every 
human  heart.  He  brings  him  in  contact  with  the  events  of 
secular  history  in  the  vast  empire  of  Augustus,  and  with  the 
whole  human  race  by  tracing  his  ancestry  back  to  Adam. 

These  features  would  suit  Gentile  readers  generally,  Romans 
as  well  as  Greeks.  But  the  long  residence  of  Luke  in  Greece, 
and  the  ancient  tradition  that  he  labored  and  died  there,  give 

1 For  other  conjectures  on  Theophilus,  which  locate  him  at  Alexandria  or  at 
Rome  or  somewhere  in  Greece,  see  the  Bible  Diets,  of  Winer  and  Smith  sub 
Theophilus.  Some  have  fancied  that  he  was  merely  an  ideal  name  for  every 
right-minded  reader  of  the  Gospel,  as  a lover  of  truth. 

2 1 : 4 : tVa  iirvyvws  irep\  u v Karrjxv^'ns  r^v  d(r<pd\eiay. 

s 1 : 26  ; 4 : 31 ; 23  : 51  ; 24  : 13  (Acts  1 : 12). 


656 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


strength  to  the  view  that  he  had  before  his  mind  chiefly  readers 
of  that  country.  According  to  Jerome  the  Gospel  was  written 
(completed)  in  Achaia  and  Boeotia.  The  whole  book  is  un- 
doubtedly admirably  suited  to  Greek  taste.  It  at  once  capti- 
vates the  refined  Hellenic  ear  by  a historic  prologue  of  classic 
construction,  resembling  the  prologues  of  Herodotus  and  Thucy- 
dides. It  is  not  without  interest  to  compare  them. 

Luke  begins : “ Forasmuch  as  many  have  taken  in  hand  to  draw  up 
a narrative  concerning  those  matters  which  have  been  fulfilled  among 
us,  even  as  they  delivered  them  unto  us,  which  from  the  beginning  were 
eyewitnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word  : it  seemed  good  to  me  also,  hav- 
ing traced  the  course  of  all  things  accurately  from  the  first,  to  write  unto 
thee  in  order,  most  noble  Theophilus ; that  thou  mightest  know  the  cer- 
tainty concerning  the  things  wherein  thou  wast  instructed.” 

Herodotus  : “ These  are  the  researches  of  Herodotus  of  Halicarnassus, 
which  he  publishes,  in  order  to  preserve  from  oblivion  the  remembrance 
of  former  deeds  of  men,  and  to  secure  a just  tribute  of  glory  to  the 
great  and  wonderful  actions  of  the  Greeks  and  the  barbarians;  and 
withal  to  put  on  record  what  were  their  grounds  of  feud.” 

Thucydides  : “ Thucydides,  an  Athenian,  wrote  the  history  of  the  war 
in  which  the  Peloponnesians  and  the  Athenians  fought  against  one 
another.  He  began  to  write  when  they  first  took  up  arms,  believing 
that  it  would  be  great  and  memorable  above  any  previous  war.  For  he 
argued  that  both  States  were  then  at  the  full  height  of  their  military 
power,  and  he  saw  the  rest  of  the  Hellenes  either  siding  or  intending  to 
side  with  one  or  other  of  them.  No  movement  ever  stirred  Hellas  more 
deeply  than  this ; it  was  shared  by  many  of  the  barbarians,  and  might 
be  said  even  to  affect  the  world  at  large.”  (Jowett’s  translation.) 

These  prefaces  excel  alike  in  brevity,  taste,  and  tact,  but  with 
this  characteristic  difference:  the  Evangelist  modestly  with- 
holds his  name  and  writes  in  the  pure  interest  of  truth  a record 
of  the  gospel  of  peace  for  the  spiritual  welfare  of  all  men ; 
while  the  great  pagan  historians  are  inspired  by  love  of  glory, 
and  aim  to  immortalize  the  destructive  wars  and  feuds  of  Greeks 
and  barbarians. 

Contents  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke. 

After  a historiographic  preface,  Luke  gives  us  first  a history 
of  the  birth  and  infancy  of  John  the  Baptist  and  Jesus,  from 
Hebrew  sources,  with  an  incident  from  the  boyhood  of  the 


§ 82.  LUKE, 


657 


Saviour  (clis.  1 and  2).  Then  he  unfolds  the  history  of  the 
public  ministry  in  chronological  order  from  the  baptism  in  the 
Jordan  to  the  resurrection  and  ascension.  We  need  only  point 
out  those  facts  and  discourses  which  are  not  found  in  the  other 
Gospels  and  which  complete  the  Synoptic  history  at  the  begin- 
ning, middle,  and  end  of  the  life  of  our  Lord.1 * * 

Luke  supplies  the  following  sections : 

I.  In  the  history  of  the  Infancy  of  John  and  Christ : 

The  appearance  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord  to  Zacharias 
in  the  temple  announcing  the  birth  of  John,  1 : 5-25. 

The  annunciation  of  the  birth  of  Christ  to  the  Virgin 
Mary,  1 : 26-38. 

The  visit  of  the  Virgin  Mary  to  Elizabeth ; the  salu- 
tation of  Elizabeth,  1 : 39-45. 

The  Magnificat  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  1 : 46-56. 

The  birth  of  John  the  Baptist,  1 : 57-66. 

The  Benedictus  of  Zacharias,  1 : 67-80. 

The  birth  of  Jesus  in  Bethlehem,  2 : 1-7. 

The  appearance  of  the  angels  to  the  shepherds  of 
Bethlehem,  and  the  “ Gloria  in  excelsis,”  2 : 8-20. 

The  circumcision  of  Jesus,  and  his  presentation  in  the 
Temple,  2 : 21-38. 

The  visit  of  Jesus  in  his  twelfth  year  to  the  passover 
in  Jerusalem,  and  his  conversation  with  the  Jewish 
doctors  in  the  Temple,  2 : 41-52. 

To  this  must  be  added  the  genealogy  of  Christ  from 
Abraham  up  to  Adam ; while  Matthew  begins,  in 
the  inverse  order,  with  Abraham,  and  presents  in 
the  parallel  section  several  differences  which  show 
their  mutual  independence,  Luke  3 : 23-38 ; comp. 
Matt.  1 : 1-17. 

II.  In  the  Public  Life  of  our  Lord  a whole  group  of  impor- 
tant events,  discourses,  and  incidents  which  occurred 

1 For  a full  analysis  of  contents  see  Van  Oosterzee,  Com.,  8-10;  Westcott, 

lntrod.  to  the  G.,  370-372  (Am.  ed.);  McClellan,  Com.  on  JV.  I7.,  I.  425-438; 

Farrar,  Com. , 31-36 ; Lange,  Bibelkunde , 187-193. 


658 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


at  different  periods,  but  mostly  on  a circuitous  journey 
from  Capernaum  to  Jerusalem  through  Samaria  and 
Persea  (9  : 51-18  : 14).  This  section  includes — 

1.  The  following  miracles  and  incidents: 

The  miraculous  draught  of  fishes,  5 : 4-11. 

The  raising  of  the  widow’s  son  at  Nain,  7 : 11-18. 
The  pardoning  of  the  sinful  woman  who  wept 
at  the  feet  of  Jesus,  7 : 36-50. 

The  support  of  Christ  by  devout  women  who 
are  named,  8 : 2,  3. 

The  rebuke  of  the  Sons  of  Thunder  in  a Sa- 
maritan village,  9 : 51-56. 

The  Mission  and  Instruction  of  the  Seventy, 
10 : 1-6. 

Entertainment  at  the  house  of  Martha  and 
Mary  ; the  one  thing  needful,  10  : 38-42. 
The  woman  who  exclaimed : “ Blessed  is  the 
womb  that  bare  thee,”  11 : 27. 

The  man  with  the  dropsy,  14 : 1-6. 

The  ten  lepers,  17:11-19. 

The  visit  to  Zacchseus,  19  : 1-10. 

The  tears  of  Jesus  over  Jerusalem,  19  : 41-44. 
The  sifting  of  Peter,  22  : 31,  32. 

The  healing  of  Malchus,  22  : 50,  51. 

2.  Original  Parables: 

The  two  Debtors,  7 : 41-43. 

The  good  Samaritan,  10  : 25-37. 

The  importunate  Friend,  11 : 5-8. 

The  rich  Fool,  12  : 16-21. 

The  barren  Fig-tree,  13  : 6-9. 

The  lost  Drachma,  15  : 8-10. 

The  prodigal  Son,  15  : 11-32. 

The  unjust  Steward,  16  : 1-13. 

Dives  and  Lazarus,  16  : 19-31. 

The  importunate  Widow,  and  the  unjust  Judge, 
18  : 1-8. 


§ 82.  LUKE. 


659 


The  Pharisee  and  the  Publican,  18  : 10-14. 

The  ten  Pounds,  19  : 11-28  (not  to  be  identified 
with  the  Parable  of  the  Talents  in  Matt. 
25 : 14-30). 

III.  In  the  history  of  the  Crucifixion  and  Resurrection  : 

The  lament  of  the  women  on  the  way  to  the  cross, 

23 : 27-30. 

The  prayer  of  Christ  for  his  murderers,  23  : 34. 

His  conversation  with  the  penitent  malefactor  and 
promise  of  a place  in  paradise,  23  : 39-43. 

The  appearance  of  the  risen  Lord  to  the  two  Disciples 
on  the  way  to  Emmaus,  24 : 13-25 ; briefly  men- 
tioned also  in  the  disputed  conclusion  of  Mark, 
16  : 12,  13. 

The  account  of  the  ascension,  24  : 50-53 ; comp.  Mark 
16  : 19,  20 ; and  Acts  1 : 3-12. 

Characteristic  Features  of  Luke. 

The  third  Gospel  is  the  Gospel  of  free  salvation  to  all  men.1 
This  corresponds  to  the  two  cardinal  points  in  the  doctrinal  sys- 
tem of  Paul : gratuitousness  and  universalness  of  salvation. 

1.  It  is  eminently  the  Gospel  of  free  salvation  by  grace 
through  faith.  Its  motto  is:  Christ  came  to  save  sinners. 
“ Saviour  ” and  “ salvation  ” are  the  most  prominent  ideas.’ 
Mary,  anticipating  the  birth  of  her  Son,  rejoices  in  God  her 
“ Saviour  ” (1 : 47) ; and  an  angel  announces  to  the  shepherds  of 

1 Lange  ( Leben  Jem , I.  258)  gives  as  the  theme  of  Luke  : “the  revelation 
of  divine  mercy  ; ” Godet  ( Com.)  : “the  manifestation  of  divine  philanthropy ” 
(Tit.  3:4);  McClellan  (I.  436) : “ salvation  of  sinners,  by  God’s  grace,  through 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  him  crucified;  ” Farrar  (p.  17)  : “ who-^vent  about 
doing  good  and  healing  all  that  were  oppressed  of  the  devil”  (Acts  10  : 38, 
better  suited  for  Mark) ; Van  Oosterzee  : “as  Paul  led  the  people  of  the  Lord 
out  of  the  bondage  of  the  law  into  the  enjoyment  of  gospel  liberty,  so  did 
Luke  raise  sacred  history  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Israelitish  nationality 
to  the  higher  and  holier  ground  of  universal  humanity 

9 The  term  <ra>r^p  occurs,  1 : 47 ; 2:11;  John  4 : 42,  and  often  in  the  Acts 
and  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  but  neither  in  Matthew  nor  Mark;  cromipla  occurs, 
Luke  1 : 69,  77 ; 19:9;  John  4 : 22,  and  repeatedly  in  the  Acts  and  the  Epis- 
tles; <rwr -ripios,  Luke  2 : 30  ; 3:6;  Acts  23  : 28  ; Eph.  6 : 17  ; Tit.  2 : 11. 


660 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Bethlehem  “ good  tidings  of  great  joy  which  shall  be  to  all  the 
people”  (2  : 10),  namely,  the  birth  of  Jesus  as  the  “ Saviour”  of 
men  (not  only  as  the  Christ  of  the  Jews).  He  is  throughout 
represented  as  the  merciful  friend  of  sinners,  as  the  healer  of  the 
sick,  as  the  comforter  of  the  broken-hearted,  as  the  shepherd  of 
the  lost  sheep.  The  parables  peculiar  to  Luke — of  the  prodigal 
son,  of  the  lost  piece  of  money,  of  the  publican  in  the  temple, 
of  the  good  Samaritan — exhibit  this  great  truth  which  Paul  so 
fully  sets  forth  in  his  Epistles.  The  parable  of  the  Pharisee 
and  the  publican  plucks  up  self-righteousness  by  the  root,  and 
is  the  foundation  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  The 
paralytic  and  the  woman  that  was  a sinner  received  pardon  by 
faith  alone.  Luke  alone  relates  the  prayer  of  Christ  on  the 
cross  for  his  murderers,  and  the  promise  of  paradise  to  the  peni- 
tent robber,  and  he  ends  with  a picture  of  the  ascending  Saviour 
lifting  up  his  hands  and  blessing  his  disciples. 

The  other  Evangelists  do  not  neglect  this  aspect  of  Christ ; 
nothing  can  be  more  sweet  and  comforting  than  his  invitation 
to  sinners  in  the  eleventh  chapter  of  Matthew,  or  his  farewell 
to  the  disciples  in  John ; but  Luke  dwells  on  it  with  peculiar 
delight.  He  is  the  painter  of  Christus  Salvator  and  Christus 

CONSOLATOR. 

2.  It  is  the  Gospel  of  universal  salvation.  It  is  emphatically 
the  Gospel  for  the  Gentiles.  Hence  the  genealogy  of  Christ  is 
traced  back  not  only  to  Abraham  (as  in  Matthew),  but  to  Adam, 
the  son  of  God  and  the  father  of  all  men  (3  : 38).  Christ  is  the 
second  Adam  from  heaven,  the  representative  Head  of  redeemed 
humanity — an  idea  further  developed  by  Paul.  The  infant 
Saviour  is  greeted  by  Simeon  as  a u Light  for  revelation  to  the 
Gentiles,  and  the  glory  of  his  people  Israel  ” (2  : 32).  The  Bap- 
tist, in  applying  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  concerning  the  voice  in 
the  wilderness  (ch.  40),  adds  the  words  (from  Isa.  52  : 10) : “ All 
flesh  shall  see  the  salvation  of  God  ” (3:6).  Luke  alone  records 
the  mission  of  the  Seventy  Disciples  who  represent  the  Gentile 
nations,  as  the  Twelve  represent  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.  lie 
alone  mentions  the  mission  of  Elijah  to  the  heathen  widow  in 


§ 82.  LUKE. 


661 


Sarepta,  and  the  cleansing  of  Naaman  the  Syrian  by  Elisha 
(4  : 26,  27).  He  contrasts  the  gratitude  of  the  leprous  Samari- 
tan with  the  ingratitude  of  the  nine  Jewish  lepers  (17  : 12-18). 
lie  selects  discourses  and  parables,  which  exhibit  God’s  mercy 
to  Samaritans  and  Gentiles.1  Yet  there  is  no  contradiction,  for 
some  of  the  strongest  passages  which  exhibit  Christ’s  mercy  to 
the  Gentiles  and  humble  the  Jewish  pride  are  found  in  Mat- 
thew, the  Jewish  Evangelist.2  The  assertion  that  the  third 
Gospel  is  a glorification  of  the  Gentile  (Pauline)  apostolate,  and 
a covert  attack  on  the  Twelve,  especially  Peter,  is  a pure  fiction 
of  modern  liypercriticism. 

3.  It  is  the  Gospel  of  the  genuine  and  full  humanity  of  Christ .3 * 
It  gives  us  the  key-note  for  the  construction  of  a real  history  of 
Jesus  from  infancy  to  boyhood  and  manhood.  Luke  represents 
him  as  the  purest  and  fairest  among  the  children  of  men,  who 
became  like  unto  us  in  all  things  except  sin  and  error.  lie  fol- 
lows him  through  the  stages  of  his  growth.  He  alone  tells  us 
that  the  child  Jesus  “ grew  and  waxed  strong,”  not  only  physi- 
cally, but  also  in  “ wisdom  ” (2  : 40) ; he  alone  reports  the  re- 
markable scene  in  the  temple,  informing  us  that  Jesus,  when 
twelve  years  old,  sat  as  a learner  “ in  the  midst  of  the  doctors, 
both  hearing  them  and  asking  questions ; ” and  that,  even  after 
that  time,  lie  “ advanced  in  wisdom  and  stature,  and  in  favor 
with  God  and  men  ” (2  : 46,  52).  All  the  Synoptists  narrate 
the  temptation  in  the  wilderness,  and  Mark  adds  horror  to  the 
scene  by  the  remark  that  Christ  was  “ with  the  wild  beasts  ” 
(1 : 12,  ya era  tw v ^rjptcov) ; but  Luke  has  the  peculiar  notice 
that  the  devil  departed  from  Jesus  only  “for  a season.”  He 
alone  mentions  the  tears  of  Jesus  over  Jerusalem,  and  “ the 
bloody  sweat”  and  the  strengthening  angel  in  the  agony  of 
Getlisemane.  As  he  brings  out  the  gradual  growth  of  Jesus, 
and  the  progress  of  the  gospel  from  Nazareth  to  Capernaum, 

1 4 : 25-27 ; 9 : 52-56 ; 10  : 33 ; 15  : 11  sqq.  ; 17  : 19  ; 13  : 10 ; 19  : 5. 

2 See  § 80,  p.  617. 

3 Lange  ( Bibelkundc , p.  187)  calls  it  11  das  Exangelium  des  Menschensohves , 

der  Uumanitdt  Chri&ti , dcr  YerlMrung  aller  KumanitaV ’ 


662 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


from  Capernaum  to  Jerusalem,  so  afterwards,  in  the  Acts,  he 
traces  the  growth  of  the  church  from  Jerusalem  to  Antioch, 
from  Antioch  to  Ephesus  and  Corinth,  from  Greece  to  Koine. 
His  is  the  Gospel  of  historical  development.  To  him  we  are  in- 
debted for  nearly  all  the  hints  that  link  the  gospel  facts  with 
the  contemporary  history  of  the  world. 

4.  It  is  the  Gospel  of  universal  humanity.  It  breathes  the 
genuine  spirit  of  charity,  liberty,  equality,  which  emanate  from 
the  Saviour  of  mankind,  but  are  so  often  counterfeited  by  his 
great  antagonist,  the  devil.  It  touches  the  tenderest  chords  of 
human  sympathy.  It  delights  in  recording  Christ’s  love  and 
compassion  for  the  sick,  the  lowly,  the  despised,  even  the  harlot 
and  the  prodigal.  It  mentions  the  beatitudes  pronounced  on 
the  poor  and  the  hungry,  his  invitation  to  the  maimed,  the  halt, 
and  the  blind,  his  prayer  on  the  cross  for  pardon  of  the  wicked 
murderers,  his  promise  to  the  dying  robber.  It  rebukes  the 
spirit  of  bigotry  and  intolerance  of  the  Jews  against  Samaritans, 
in  the  parable  of  the  good  Samaritan.  It  reminds  the  Sons  of 
Thunder  when  they  were  about  to  call  fire  from  heaven  upon  a 
Samaritan  village  that  He  came  not  to  destroy  but  to  save.  It 
tells  us  that  “ he  who  is  not  against  Christ  is  for  Christ,”  no 
matter  what  sectarian  or  unsectarian  name  he  may  bear. 

5.  It  is  the  Gospel  for  woman.  It  weaves  the  purest  types 
of  womanhood  into  the  gospel  story : Elizabeth,  who  saluted 
the  Saviour  before  his  birth ; the  Virgin,  whom  all  genera- 
tions call  blessed ; the  aged  prophetess  Anna,  who  departed 
not  from  the  temple ; Martha,  the  busy,  hospitable  house- 
keeper, with  her  quiet,  contemplative  sister  Mary  of  Bethany ; 
and  that  noble  band  of  female  disciples  who  ministered  of 
their  substance  to  the  temporal  wants  of  the  Son  of  God  and 
his  apostles. 

It  reveals  the  tender  compassion  of  Christ  for  all  the  suffering 
daughters  of  Eve : the  widow  at  Nain  mourning  at  the  bier  of 
her  only  son  ; for  the  fallen  sinner  who  bathed  his  feet  with  her 
tears ; for  the  poor  sick  woman,  who  had  wasted  all  her  living 
upon  physicians,  and  whom  he  addressed  as  “ Daughter ; ” and 


§ 82.  LUKE. 


663 


for  the  “daughters  of  Jerusalem”  who  followed  him  weeping  to 
Calvary.  If  anywhere  we  may  behold  the  divine  humanity  of 
Christ  and  the  perfect  union  of  purity  and  love,  dignity  and 
tender  compassion,  it  is  in  the  conduct  of  Jesus  towards  women 
and  children.  “The  scribes  and  Pharisees  gathered  up  their 
robes  in  the  streets  and  synagogues  lest  they  should  touch  a 
woman,  and  held  it  a crime  to  look  on  an  unveiled  woman  in 
public ; our  Lord  suffered  a woman  to  minister  to  him  out  of 
whom  he  had  cast  seven  devils.” 

6.  It  is  the  Gospel  for  children,  and  all  who  are  of  a childlike 
spirit.  It  sheds  a sacred  halo  and  celestial  charm  over  infancy, 
as  perpetuating  the  paradise  of  innocence  in  a sinful  world.  It 
alone  relates  the  birth  and  growth  of  John,  the  particulars  of 
the  birth  of  Christ,  his  circumcision  and  presentation  in  the 
temple,  his  obedience  to  parents,  his  growth  from  infancy  to 
boyhood,  from  boyhood  to  manhood.  The  first  two  chapters 
will  always  be  the  favorite  chapters  for  children  and  all  who 
delight  to  gather  around  the  manger  of  Bethlehem  and  to  re- 
joice with  shepherds  on  the  field  and  angels  in  heaven. 

7.  It  is  the  Gospel  of  poetry'  We  mean  the  poetry  of  religion, 
the  poetry  of  worship,  the  poetry  of  prayer  and  thanksgiving, 
a poetry  resting  not  on  fiction,  but  on  facts  and  eternal  truth. 
In  such  poetry  there  is  more  truth  than  in  every-day  prose.  The 
whole  book  is  full  of  dramatic  vivacity  and  interest.  It  begins 
and  ends  with  thanksgiving  and  praise.  The  first  two  chapters 
are  overflowing  with  festive  joy  and  gladness ; they  are  a para- 
dise of  fragrant  flowers,  and  the  air  is  resonant  with  the  sweet 
melodies  of  Hebrew  psalmody  and  Christian  hymnody.  The 
Salute  of  Elizabeth  (“  Ave  Maria  ”),  the  “ Magnificat  ” of  Mary, 
the  “ Benedictus  ” of  Zacharias,  the  “ Gloria  in  Excelsis  ” of  the 
Angels,  the  “ Nunc  Dimittis  ” of  Simeon,  sound  from  genera- 

1 Farrar  (p.  23)  calls  Luke  “ the  first  Christian  hymnologist”  (better  hym- 
niflt),  and  quotes  the  lines  from  Keble  : 

“ Thou  hast  an  ear  for  angel  songs, 

A breath  the  gospel  trump  to  fill, 

And  taught  by  thee  the  Church  prolongs 
Her  hymns  of  high  thanksgiving  still.” 


664 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


tion  to  generation  in  every  tongue,  and  are  a perpetual  inspira 
tion  for  new  hymns  of  praise  to  the  glory  of  Christ. 

No  wonder  that  the  third  Gospel  has  been  pronounced,  from 
a purely  literary  and  humanitarian  standpoint,  to  be  the  most 
beautiful  book  ever  written.* 

The  Style. 

Luke  is  the  best  Greek  writer  among  the  Evangelists.3  Hia 
style  shows  his  general  culture.  It  is  free  from  solecisms,  rich 
in  vocabulary,  rhythmical  in  construction.  But  as  a careful  and 
conscientious  historian  he  varies  considerably  with  the  subject 
and  according  to  the  nature  of  his  documents. 

Matthew  begins  characteristically  with  “ Book  of  generation  ” 
or  “Genealogy”  yevetrew),  which  looks  back  to  the 

Hebrew  Sepher  toledoth  (comp.  Gen.  5:1;  2:4);  Mark  with 
u Beginning  of  the  gospel  ” (apxv  T°v  evayyeXiov),  which 
introduces  the  reader  at  once  to  the  scene  of  present  action; 
Luke  with  a historiographic  prologue  of  classical  ring,  and  un- 
surpassed for  brevity,  modesty,  and  dignity.  But  when  he 
enters  upon  the  history  of  the  infancy,  which  he  derived  no 
doubt  from  Aramaic  traditions  or  documents,  his  language  has 

1 This  is  the  judgment  of  Renan,  which  is  worth  preserving  in  full. 

L' Evangile  de  Luc he  says  (in  Les  fivangiles , p.  282  and  283),  “ est  le  plus 

litteraire  des  evangiles . Tout  y revele  un  esprit  large  et  doux , sage,  modere, 
sobre  et  raisonnable  dans  Virrationnel.  Ses  exagerations , ses  invraisemblances , 
sea  inconsequences  tiennent  d la  nature  merne  de  la  parabole  et  en  font  le  charme. 
Mattliieu  arrondit  les  contours  un  peu  secs  de  Marc.  Luc  fait  bien  plus  ; il  ecrit , 
il  mo  litre  une  vraie  entente  de  la  composition.  Son  livre  est  un  beau  recit  bien 
suivi , d lafois  hebraique  et  hellenique,  joignant  V emotion  du  drame  a la  serenite 
de  Vidylle.  Tout  y rit,  tout  y pleure , tout  y chante ; partout  des  larmes  et  des 
cantiques  ; c'est  Vhymne  du  peuple  nouveau , l’hosanna  des  petits  et  des  humbles 
introduits  dans  le  royaume  de  Dieu.  Un  espHt  desainte  enfance , dejoie , defer • 
veur , le  sentiment  evangelique  dans  son  originalite  premiere  repandent  sur  toute 
la  legende  une  teinte  d'une  incomparable  douceur.  On  ne  fut  jamais  moins  sec ° 
taire.  Pas  un  reproche,  pas  un  mot  dur  pour  le  vieux  peuple  exclu  ; son  exclu- 
sion ne  le  punit-elle  pas  assez  ? C'est  le  plus  beau  livre  qu'il  y ait.  Le  plaisir 
que  V auteur  dut  avoir  d Vecrire  ne  sera  jamais  suffisamment  compris 

2 Jerome,  who  had  a great  genius  for  language,  says,  Epist.  ad  Dam.,  20 
(145) : “ Lucas  qui  inter  omnes  evangelistas  Orceci  sermonis  eruditissimus  fuit , 
quippe  et  medicus,  et  qui  Evangelium  Creeds  scripserit. ” In  another  passage 
he  says  that  Luke’s  “ sermo  scecularem  redolet  eloquent iam." 


§ 82.  LUKE. 


665 


h stronger  Hebrew  coloring  than  any  other  portion  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  songs  of  Zacliarias,  Elizabeth,  Mary,  and 
Simeon,  and  the  anthem  of  the  angelic  host,  are  the  last  of 
Hebrew  psalms  as  well  as  the  first  of  Christian  hymns.  They 
can  be  literally  translated  back  into  the  Hebrew,  without  losing 
their  beauty.1  The  same  variation  in  style  characterizes  the 
Acts ; the  first  part  is  Hebrew  Greek,  the  second  genuine  Greek. 

His  vocabulary  considerably  exceeds  that  of  the  other  Evan- 
gelists : he  has  about  180  terms  which  occur  in  his  Gospel  alone 
and  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament ; while  Matthew  has 
only  about  70,  Mark  44,  and  John  50  peculiar  words.  Luke’s 
Gospel  has  55,  the  Acts  135  aired;  Xeyo/ieva,  and  among  them 
many  verbal  compounds  and  rare  technical  terms. 

The  medical  training  and  practice  of  Luke,  “the  beloved 
physician,”  familiarized  him  with  medical  terms,  which  appear 
quite  naturally,  without  any  ostentation  of  professional  knowl- 
edge, in  his  descriptions  of  diseases  and  miracles  of  healing,  and 
they  agree  with  the  vocabulary  of  ancient  medical  writers.  Thus 
he  speaks  of  the  “ great  fever  ” of  Peter’s  mother-in-law,  with 
reference  to  the  distinction  made  between  great  and  small  fevers 
(according  to  Galen) ; 2 and  of  ufeve7'S  and  dysentery,”  of  which 
the  father  of  Publius  at  Melita  was  healed  (as  Hippocrates  uses 
fever  in  the  plural).3 

1 See  the  Version  of  Delitzsch  in  his  Hebrew  New  Testament,  published  by 
the  Brit,  and  For.  Bible  Society. 

2 4 : 38  : (rvvexop.emi  Tfvpercp  /xeyd\(p.  avvexo/ievr]  is  likewise  a medical  term. 

3 Acts.  28  : 8 : -iruperois  teal  Sv&evreplcp  ffvvextpavov.  Other  instances  of  medi* 
cal  knowledge  are  found  in  Luke  8 : 46;  22  : 44 ; Acts  3 : 7 ; 9 : 18;  10  : 9, 
10.  Dr.  Plumptre  even  traces  several  expressions  of  Paul,  such  as  “ healthy 
doctrine”  (1  Tim.  1 : 10;  6:3),  ‘‘gangrene”  or  “cancer”  (2  Tim.  2 : 17), 
the  conscience  “seared,”  or  rather  “cauterized”  (1  Tim.  4:2),  and  the 
recommendation  of  a little  wine  for  the  stomach’s  sake  (1  Tim.  5 : 23),  to  the 
influence  of  “the  beloved  physician,”  who  administered  to  him  in  his  peculiar 
physical  infirmities.  Rather  fanciful.  Rev.  W.  K.  Hobart,  of  Trinity  College, 
Dublin,  published  a work  (1882)  on  The  Medical  Language  of  St.  Luke , in 
which  he  furnished  the  proof  from  internal  evidence  that  the  Gospel  of  Luke 
and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  were  written  by  the  same  person,  and  that  the 
writer  was  a medical  man.  He  has  compared  over  four  hundred  peculiar 
words  and  phrases  of  these  hooks  with  the  use  of  the  same  words  in  Hippo- 
crates, Aretaeus,  Dioscorides,  and  Galen. 


666 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


He  was  equally  familiar  with  navigation,  not  indeed  as  a pro- 
fessional seaman,  but  as  an  experienced  traveller  and  accurate 
observer.  He  uses  no  less  than  seventeen  nautical  terms  with 
perfect  accuracy.1  His  description  of  the  Voyage  and  Ship- 
wreck of  Paul  in  the  last  two  chapters  of  Acts,  as  explained  and 
confirmed  by  a scholarly  seaman,  furnishes  an  irrefragable  argu- 
ment for  the  ability  and  credibility  of  the  author  of  that  book.2 

Luke  is  fond  of  words  of  joy  and  gladness.3  He  often  men- 
tions the  Holy  Spirit,  and  he  is  the  only  writer  who  gives  us  an 
account  of  the  pentecostal  miracle.4  Minor  peculiarities  are  the 
use  of  the  more  correct  Xifivrj  of  the  lake  of  Galilee  for  Sakacrcra, 
vofu/cos  and  vofioBcBdcr/caXos  for  ypafz/iarevs,  to  elpr^fievov  in  quota- 
tions for  prjSev,  vvv  for  aprt , kairkpa  for  oyfrla , the  frequency  of 
attraction  of  the  relative  pronoun  and  participial  construction. 

There  is  a striking  resemblance  between  the  style  of  Luke 
and  Paul,  which  corresponds  to  their  spiritual  sympathy  and 
long  intimacy.6  They  agree  in  the  report  of  the  institution  of 

1 Among  these  are  seven  compounds  of  irXeco,  describing  the  motion  and 
management  of  a ship,  as  follows  : tt\ eco,  to  sail,  Luke  8 : 23 ; Acts  21  : 3 ; 
27  : 6,  24.  awoir\eco}  to  sail  from,  Acts  13  : 4 ; 14  : 26  ; 20  : 15;  27  : 1.  i 8pa5v- 
v\oeu  (from  Ppadvs,  slow),  to  sail  slowly,  Acts  27  : 7.  5tair\€w,  to  sail  through 
(not  “ over,”  as  in  the  A.  V.),  Acts  27  : 5.  e/nrAew,  to  sail  away,  Acts  15  : 39 ; 
18  : 18  ; 20  : 6.  /earairAeco,  to  arrive,  Luke  8 : 26.  uiroirAtw,  to  sail  under  the 
lee,  Acts  27  : 4,  7.  TrapairXew,  to  sail  by.  Acts  20  : 16.  Add  to  these  the  fol- 
lowing nautical  terms  : avd.yop.ai , to  get  under  way,  to  put  to  sea,  Acts  27  : 4. 
tiairepaa),  to  sail  over,  Acts  21  : 2.  5ia<f>epopai , to  be  driven  to  and  fro,  Acts 
27  : 27.  iiriKeWoo,  to  run  the  ship  ashore,  Acts  27  : 41.  fvSvtipopew,  to  make 
a straight  course,  Acts  16  : 11 ; 21  : 1.  irapaXtyonai  (middle),  to  sail  by,  Acts 
27  : 8,  13.  viroTpexco  (aor.  2,  virtbpapov) , to  run  under  the  lee,  Acts  27  : 16. 
<p4popai  (pass.),  to  be  driven,  Acts  27  : 15,  17.  Also,  efcjSoAV  iiroiovvro , Acta 
27  : 18,  and  iKovQi&v  rb  irXoiov,  27  : 38,  which  are  technical  terms  for  lightening 
the  ship  by  throwing  cargo  overboard. 

2 See  James  Smith,  l. c.,  and  SchafFs  Companion  to  the  Gr.  Test.,  pp. 
57-61. 

3 As  Xap<£,  Luke  1 : 14  ; 2:10;  8:13;  10:17;  15:  7,  10;  24:41,  51. 

4 irvevpa  Hyiov  or  wevpa  alone,  1 : 15,  34,  35,  41,  67 ; 2 : 25,  26,  27 ; 3 : 16,  22  , 
4 : 1,  14,  18  ; 12  : 10,  12;  and  still  more  frequently  in  the  Acts,  which  is  the 
Gospel  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

* See  Holtzmann,  Syn.  Evang.,  pp.  316-324,  copied  in  part  (without  ac- 
knowledgment) by  Davidson,  Introd . , I.  437  sqq.  Holtzmann  enumerates 
about  two  hundred  expressions  or  phrases  common  to  Luke  and  Paul,  and 
more  or  less  foreign  to  the  other  writers  of  the  New  Testament. 


§ 82.  LUKE. 


6G7 


the  Lord’s  Supper,  which  is  the  oldest  we  have  (from  a.d.  57) ; 
both  substitute : “ This  cup  is  the  new  covenant  in  My  blood,” 
for  “ This  is  My  blood  of  the  (new)  covenant,”  and  add : “This 
do  in  remembrance  of  Me”  (Luke  22  : 19,  20 ; 1 Cor.  11  : 24, 
25).  They  are  equally  fond  of  words  which  characterize  the 
freedom  and  universal  destination  of  the  gospel  salvation.1 
They  have  many  terms  in  common  which  occur  nowhere  else  in 
the  New  Testament.2  And  they  often  meet  in  thought  and  ex- 
pression in  a way  that  shows  both  the  close  intimacy  and  the 
mutual  independence  of  the  two  writers.3 


1 As  x^Pls*  &«oi,  irl(TTti,  SiKaiocumj,  8'uca.ios,  irvevjua  dyiov,  yvw<risy  tivvafiis  Kvplov. 
a As  dyv  oeiv,  dSiKta,  a&e rttv,  dvaire/xTreiv^  dvTairoKp'ivea&ai,  avri- 

iceipevos,  dvri\apl3<xve(r&ai,  aire\irl£eiv,  airo\oye7<r&ai,  arev(£eiv,  4k8iu)K€iv,  4m<palveiv^ 
fvyerfjs,  ijx^vi  Karapyciv,  Kivtivvevetv,  Kvpieveiv , iravorr\(at  Trapdfieuros,  avyx^peiv, 
<rvyev8oK(ivy  vart pupa,  x°ty’f£e0’&<u»  ipa\p6s,  and  others,  also  the  particles  aAA’ 
ov 5e,  el  Kai , el  piirt,  rts  ovv.  The  word  Kvpios  as  a substitute  for  Jesus  occurs 
fourteen  times  in  Luke  and  often  in  the  Epistles,  but  only  once  in  the  Synop- 
tists  <the  closing  verses  of  Mark,  16  : 19,  20). 

3 Take  the  following  specimens  of  striking  parallelism  (quoted  by  Holtz- 
mann,  322) : 


Luke. 


Paul. 


6 : 48 : cOrjxev  9epe\tov  «jti  ttjv  n4rpav. 

8:15:  xapno<l>opov<riv  vnopovjj. 

9 : 58 : ovx  ^A0e  i^v^a?  avOpuntov  ano\4<raa, 
aAAa  crwaa i. 

10  : 8 : errBiere  ra  irapa.Ti9ep.cva  vplv. 

10 : 20 ri  ovopara  vputv  eypa<f>rj  ev  rolg 
ovpavolg. 

10 : 21 : arre'/cpui^a?  r avra  a7ro  <ro<f>u)V  xal  avve- 
Ttov  xal  anexaAvtpag  avra  vrjnioig. 

11  : 41 : navra  xaOapa  vplv  irrnv. 

11:49:  ano<rre\<a  els  avrovg  npo^rjrag  xal 
airooroAovs  xal  e£  avriov  anoxrevovrri.  xal 
exSubgovmv. 

12 : 35 : eorvxrav  vpS> v ai  b<r<f>veg  nepieguj- 
vpevai. 

18:1:  belv  navrore  npo<rev\ea9ai  xal  pij 
ixxaxelv. 


20  : 16:  pij  y4voi.ro. 

20  : 38 : navra  yap  auT<3  guvriv. 

21  : 24 : xai  Tepou<raA?pi  eorat  narovpevrj  vno 
i9vu>v  a%pi  nXrjpaiOuxrt  xaipol  eOvutv. 


1 Cor.  3 : 10 : a>s  aotftbg  apxire'xrcjv  Bepe Aior 

edrjxa. 

Col.  1:10,  11 : xapno<t>opovvre$  xal  ai>(av6- 
pevoi  eig  naaav  vnopovrjv. 

2 Cor.  10  : 8 : eSuxev  eig  oixoSoprjv  xal  ovx 
eig  xaSaipeaiv.  13  : 10. 

1 Cor.  10 : 27 : nav  rb  napanOipevov  vplv 
eaOLere. 

Phil.  4:3:  S>v  ra  ovSpara  ev  /3t/3Aa»  fa 

1 Cor.  1 : 19 : ano\S>  rrjv  aorfriav  ru>v  <ro<f>tx)v 
xal  ttjv  <rvve<riv  ru>v  avveruiv  aOerrjaoi.  27:  t<* 
pwpa  rov  xocrpov  efeAefaro  6 Beog  'iva  xarat- 
erxvvji  rovg  <ro<f>ovg. 

Tit.  1 : 15 : navra  pev  xaOapa  rots  xaBapolg. 

1 Thess.  2:15:  riov  xal  rov  xvptov  anoxrei- 
! vavruiv  ’Irjaovv  xal  rovg  npo<f>rjras  xal  17/xas 
I exbuof-a vruiv. 

Eph.  6:14:  OTTjre  ovv  nepigtaaapevoi  r 
| o<r<f>vv  vptov  ev  abrjOeta. 

I 2 Thess.  1 : 11 : eig  6 xat  npoaevxopeOa  nav- 
rore.  Col.  4:12:  navrore  aytavtgopevog  vnep 
vpwv  iv  ralg  npoaevxaig.  Comp.  1 Thess.  5:1, 
7;  Rom.  1:10. 

Rom.  9:14;  11:11;  Gal.  3:21. 

Rom.  14:7,  8:  eav  re  yap  gib  pev,  rta  xvpiy 
gotpev.  Comp.  2 Cor.  5 : 15. 

Rom.  11 : 25 : on  ntap<t><rig  rw  TopaijA  yeycvcr 
axpn  ov  to  nbrjpiapa  r uv  iOvibv  cure \9jj. 


668 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Genuineness.1 

The  genuineness  of  Luke  is  above  reasonable  doubt.  The 
character  of  the  Gospel  agrees  perfectly  with  what  we  might 
expect  from  the  author  as  far  as  we  know  him  from  the  Acts 
and  the  Epistles.  No  other  writer  answers  the  description. 

The  external  evidence  is  not  so  old  and  clear  as  that  in  favor 
of  Matthew  and  Mark.  Papias  makes  no  mention  of  Luke.  Per- 
haps he  thought  it  unnecessary,  because  Luke  himself  in  the  pre- 
face gives  an  account  of  the  origin  and  aim  of  his  book.  The 
allusions  in  Barnabas,  Clement  of  Pome,  and  Ilermas  are  vague 
and  uncertain.  But  other  testimonies  are  sufficient  for  the  pur- 
pose. Irenseus  in  Gaul  says : “ Luke,  the  companion  of  Paul, 
committed  to  writing  the  gospel  preached  by  the  latter.”  The 
Muratori  fragment  which  contains  the  Italian  traditions  of  the 
canon,  mentions  the  Gospel  of  “Luke,  the  physician,  whom 
Paul  had  associated  with  himself  as  one  zealous  for  righteous- 
ness, to  be  his  companion,  who  had  not  seen  the  Lord  in  the 
flesh,  but  having  carried  his  inquiries  as  far  back  as  possible, 
began  his  history  with  the  birth  of  John.”  Justin  Martyr 
makes  several  quotations  from  Luke,  though  he  does  not  name 
him.2  This  brings  us  up  to  the  year  140  or  130.  The  Gospel 
is  found  in  all  ancient  manuscripts  and  translations. 

The  heretical  testimony  of  Marcion  from  the  year  140  is  like- 
wise conclusive.  It  was  always  supposed  that  his  Gospel,  the 
only  one  he  recognized,  was  a mutilation  of  Luke,  and  this  view 
is  now  confirmed  and  finally  established  by  the  investigations 
and  concessions  of  the  very  school  which  for  a short  time  had 
endeavored  to  reverse  the  order  by  making  Marcion’s  caricature 
the  original  of  Luke.3  The  pseudo-Clementine  Homilies  and 

1 See  the  ancient  testimonies  in  Charteris’s  Kirchhofer,  l.c.,  154  sqq. 

- Freely  admitted  by  Zeller,  Davidson  (I.  444),  and  others  of  that  school. 

3 Even  the  author  of  ‘ ‘ Supernatural  Religion  ” was  forced  at  last  to  surren- 
der to  the  arguments  of  Dr.  Sanday,  in  1875,  after  the  question  had  already 
been  settled  years  before  in  Germany  by  Hilgenfeld  (1850)  and  Volkmar  (1852). 
Davidson  also  ( lntrod . , new  ed.,  I.  446)  admits:  “There  is  no  doubt  that 
Marcion  had  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  which  he  adapted  to  his  own  ideas  by  arbi- 


§ 82.  LUKE. 


669 


Recognitions  quote  from  Luke.  Basilides  and  Valentinus  and 
their  followers  used  all  the  four  Gospels,  and  are  reported  to 
have  quoted  Luke  1 : 35  for  their  purpose. 

Celsus  must  have  had  Luke  in  view  when  he  referred  to  the 
genealogy  of  Christ  as  being  traced  to  Adam. 

Credibility. 

The  credibility  of  Luke  has  been  assailed  on  the  ground  that 
he  shaped  the  history  by  his  motive  and  aim  to  harmonize  the 
Petrine  and  Pauline,  or  the  Jewish-Christian  and  the  Gentile- 
Christian  parties  of  the  church.  But  the  same  critics  contradict 
themselves  by  discovering,  on  the  other  hand,  strongly  Judaizing 
and  even  Ebionitic  elements  in  Luke,  and  thus  make  it  an  inco- 
herent mosaic  or  clumsy  patchwork  of  moderate  Paulinism  and 
Ebionism,  or  they  arbitrarily  assume  different  revisions  through 
which  it  passed  without  being  unified  in  plan. 

Against  this  misrepresentation  we  have  to  say : (1)  An  irenic 
spirit,  such  as  we  may  freely  admit  in  the  writings  of  Luke,  does 
not  imply  an  alteration  or  invention  of  facts.  On  the  contrary, 
it  is  simply  an  unsectarian,  catholic  spirit  which  aims  at  the 
truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  and  which  is  the  first  duty  and 
virtue  of  an  historian.  (2)  Luke  certainly  did  not  invent  those 
marvellous  parables  and  discourses  which  have  been  twisted  into 
subserviency  to  the  tendency  hypothesis  ; else  Luke  would  have 
had  a creative  genius  of  the  highest  order,  equal  to  that  of  Jesus 
himself,  while  he  modestly  professes  to  be  simply  a faithful 
collector  of  actual  facts.  (3)  Paul  himself  did  not  invent  his 
type  of  doctrine,  but  received  it,  according  to  his  own  solemn 
asseveration,  by  revelation  from  Jesus  Christ,  who  called  him  to 
the  apostleship  of  the  Gentiles.  (4)  It  is  now  generally  ad- 
mitted that  the  Tubingen  hypothesis  of  the  difference  between 
the  two  types  and  parties  in  the  apostolic  church  is  greatly  over- 
strained and  set  aside  by  Paul’s  own  testimony  in  the  Galatians, 
which  is  as  irenic  and  conciliatory  to  the  pillar-apostles  as  it  is 

trary  treatment.  He  lived  before  Justin,  about  A.D.  140,  and  is  the  earliest 
writer  from  whom  we  learn  the  existence  of  the  Gospel.” 


670 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


uncompromisingly  polemic  against  the  “ false  ” brethren  or  the 
heretical  Judaizers.  (5)  Some  of  the  strongest  anti- Jewish  and 
pro-Gentile  testimonies  of  Christ  are  found  in  Matthew  and 
omitted  by  Luke.1 

The  accuracy  of  Luke  has  already  been  spoken  of,  and  has 
been  well  vindicated  by  Godet  against  Renan  in  several  minor 
details.  “ While  remaining  quite  independent  of  the  other 
three,  the  Gospel  of  Luke  is  confirmed  and  supported  by  them 
all.” 


Time  of  Composition. 

There  are  strong  indications  that  the  third  Gospel  was  com- 
posed (not  published)  between  58  and  63,  before  the  close  of 
Paul’s  Roman  captivity.  No  doubt  it  took  several  years  to 
collect  and  digest  the  material ; and  the  book  was  probably  not 
published,  i.e .,  copied  and  distributed,  till  after  the  death  of  Paul, 
at  the  same  time  with  the  Acts,  which  forms  the  second  part 
and  is  dedicated  to  the  same  patron.  In  this  way  the  conflict- 
ing accounts  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Irenseus  may  be 
harmonized.2 

1 Davidson  still  adheres  to  this  exploded  Tubingen  view  in  his  new  edition 
(1.467):  “Luke  wished  to  bring  Judaism  [sic!]  and  Paulinism  together  in 
the  sphere  of  comprehensive  Christianity,  where  the  former  would  merge  into 
the  latter.  In  conformity  with  this  purpose,  he  describes  the  irreconcilable 
opposition  between  Jesus  and  his  opponents.”  As  if  Matthew  and  Mark  and 
John  did  not  precisely  the  same  thing.  He  even  repeats  the  absurd  fiction  of 
Baur,  which  was  refuted  long  ago,  not  only  by  Godet,  but  even  in  part  at  least 
by  Zeller,  Holtzmann,  and  Keim,  that  Luke  had  “ the  obvious  tendency  to 
depreciate  the  twelve,  in  comparison  with  the  seventy  ” (p.  469).  Baur  de- 
rived the  chief  proof  of  an  alleged  hostility  of  Luke  to  Peter  from  his  omission 
of  the  famous  passage,  “Thou  art  Rock  but  Mark  omits  it  likewise;  and 
Luke,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  only  Evangelist  who  records  the  word  of 
Christ  to  Peter,  ch.  22  : 32,  on  which  the  Romanists  base  the  dogma  of  papal 
infallibility. 

2 The  critics  differ  widely  as  to  the  date  of  composition  : (1)  For  a date  prior 

to  A.D.  70  are  all  the  older  divines,  also  Lange,  Ebrard,  Guericke,  van  Ooster- 
aee,  Godet  (60-67),  Thiersch  (58-60),  Alford  (58),  Riddle  (60).  (2)  For  a date 

between  70  and  90:  De  Wette,  Bleek.  Reuss.  Holtzmann,  Glider,  Meyer, 
Weiss  (70-80),  Keim,  Abbott  (80-90).  (3)  For  a.d.  100  and  later:  Hilgenfeld 

and  Volkmar  (100),  Zeller  and  Davidson  (100-110).  The  date  of  Baur,  a.d. 
140,  is  perfectly  wild  and  made  impossible  by  the  clear  testimonies  of  Justin 


§ 82.  LUKE. 


671 


1.  Luke  Lad  the  best  leisure  for  literary  composition  during 
the  four  years  of  Paul’s  imprisonment  at  Caesarea  and  Pome. 
In  Caesarea  he  was  within  easy  reacli  of  the  surviving  eye- 
witnesses and  classical  spots  of  the  gospel  history,  and  we  cannot 
suppose  that  he  neglected  the  opportunity. 

2.  The  Gospel  was  written  before  the  book  of  Acts,  which 
expressly  refers  to  it  as  the  first  treatise  inscribed  to  the  same 
Theophilus  (1 : 1).  As  the  Acts  come  down  to  the  second  year 
of  Paul’s  captivity  in  Pome,  they  cannot  have  been  finished 
before  a.d.  63  ; but  as  they  abruptly  break  off  without  any  men- 
tion of  Paul’s  release  or  martyrdom,  it  seems  quite  probable 
that  they  were  concluded  before  the  fate  of  the  apostle  was  de- 
cided one  way  or  the  other,  unless  the  writer  was,  like  Mark, 
prevented  by  some  event,  perhaps  the  Peronian  persecution, 
from  giving  his  book  the  natural  conclusion.  In  its  present 
shape  it  excites  in  the  reader  the  greatest  curiosity,  which  could 
have  been  gratified  with  a few  words,  either  that  the  apostle 
sealed  his  testimony  with  his  blood,  or  that  he  entered  upon 
new  missionary  tours  East  and  West  until  at  last  he  finished  his 
course  after  a second  captivity  in  Pome.  I may  add  that  the 
entire  absence  of  any  allusion  in  the  Acts  to  any  of  Paul’s  Epis- 
tles can  be  easily  explained  by  the  assumption  of  a nearly  con- 
temporaneous composition,  while  it  seems  almost  unaccountable 
if  we  assume  an  interval  of  ten  or  twenty  years. 

3.  Luke’s  ignorance  of  Matthew  and  probably  also  of  Mark 
points  likewise  to  an  early  date  of  composition.  A careful  in- 
vestigator, like  Luke,  writing  after  the  year  70,  could  hardly 
have  overlooked,  among  his  many  written  sources,  such  an  im- 
portant document  as  Matthew  which  the  best  critics  put  before 
a.d.  70. 

4.  Clement  of  Alexandria  has  preserved  a tradition  that  the 
Gospels  containing  the  genealogies,  i.e .,  Matthew  and  Luke, 
were  written  first.  Irenaeus,  it  is  true,  puts  the  third  Gospel 

Martyr  and  Marcion.  Hence  he  was  unwilling  to  retract  in  toto  his  former 
view  about  the  priority  of  Marcion’s  Gospel,  though  he  felt  obliged  to  do  it  in 
part  (Kirchengesch.,  I.  75  and  78). 


672 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


after  Matthew  and  Mark  and  after  the  death  of  Peter  and  Paul, 
that  is,  after  64  (though  certainly  not  after  70).  If  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  were  written  nearly  simultaneously,  we  can  easily  ac- 
count for  these  differences  in  the  tradition.  Irenaeus  was  no 
better  informed  on  dates  than  Clement,  and  was  evidently  mis- 
taken about  the  age  of  Christ  and  the  date  of  the  Apocalypse. 
But  he  may  have  had  in  view  the  time  of  publication,  which 
must  not  be  confounded  with  the  date  of  composition.  Many 
books  nowadays  are  withheld  from  the  market  for  some  reason 
months  or  years  after  they  have  passed  through  the  hands  of 
the  printer. 

The  objections  raised  against  such  an  early  date  are  not  well 
founded.1 * * * * 6 

The  prior  existence  of  a number  of  fragmentary  Gospels  im- 
plied in  1 : 1 need  not  surprise  us ; for  such  a story  as  that  of 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  must  have  set  many  pens  in  motion  at  a very 
early  time.  “ Though  the  art  of  writing  had  not  existed,”  says 
Lange,  “ it  would  have  been  invented  for  such  a theme.” 

1 Dr.  Abbott,  of  London  (in  “Enc.  Brit.,”  X.  813,  of  the  ninth  ed.,  1879), 
discovers  no  less  than  ten  reasons  for  the  later  date  of  Luke,  eight  of  them 
in  the  preface  alone:  “(1)  the  pre-existence  and  implied  failure  of  many 

‘ attempts  ’ to  set  forth  continuous  narratives  of  the  things  ‘ surely  believed  ; ’ 

(2)  the  mention  of  ‘ tradition  ’ of  the  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word 

as  past,  not  as  present  (ir apeSoaav,  1:2);  (3)  the  dedication  of  the  Gospel  to 

a man  of  rank  (fictitious  or  otherwise),  who  is  supposed  to  have  been  k cate- 
chized ’ in  Christian  truth  ; (4)  the  attempt  at  literary  style  and  at  improve- 
ment of  the  ‘ usus  ecclesiasticus  ’ of  the  common  tradition  ; (5)  the  composi- 
tion of  something  like  a commencement  of  a Christian  hymnology;  (6)  the 
development  of  the  genealogy  and  the  higher  tone  of  the  narrative  of  the 
incarnation  ; (7)  the  insertion  of  many  passages  mentioning  our  Lord  as 

6 Kvpios , not  in  address,  but  in  narrative;  (8)  the  distinction,  more  sharply 
drawn,  between  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  and  the  final  coming  ; (9)  the  detailed 
prediction  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  implying  reminiscences  of  its  fulfilment ; 
(10)  the  very  great  development  of  the  manifestations  of  Jesus  after  the  resur- 
rection. The  inference  from  all  this  evidence  would  be  that  Luke  was  not 
written  till  about  a.d.  80  at  earliest.  If  it  could  be  further  demonstrated  that 
Luke  used  any  Apocryphal  book  (Judith,  for  example),  and  if  it  could  be  shown 
that  the  book  in  question  was  written  after  a certain  date  (Renan  suggests 
a.d.  80  for  the  date  of  the  book  of  Judith),  it  might  be  necessary  to  place 
Luke  much  later  ; but  no  such  demonstration  has  been  hitherto  produced.” 
But  most  of  these  arguments  are  set  aside  by  the  tj/ju v in  1 : 2,  which  includes 


82.  LUKE. 


673 


Of  more  weight  is  the  objection  that  Luke  seems  to  have 
shaped  the  eschatological  prophecies  of  Christ  so  as  to  suit  the 
fulfilment  by  bringing  in  the  besieging  (Roman)  army,  and  by 
interposing  “ the  times  of  the  Gentiles  ” between  the  destruc 
tion  of  Jerusalem  and  the  end  of  the  world  (19  : 43,  44;  21  : 20- 
24).  This  would  put  the  composition  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  say  between  70  and  80,  if  not  later.1  But  such  an 
intentional  change  of  the  words  of  our  Lord  is  inconsistent  with 
the  unquestionable  honesty  of  the  historian  and  his  reverence 
for  the  words  of  the  Divine  teacher.2  Moreover,  it  is  not  borne 
out  by  the  facts.  For  the  other  Synoptists  likewise  speak  of 
wars  and  the  abomination  of  desolation  in  the  holy  place,  which 
refers  to  the  Jewish  wars  and  the  Roman  eagles  (Matt.  24:15; 
Mark  13  : 14).  Luke  makes  the  Lord  say : “Jerusalem  shall  be 
trodden  down  by  the  Gentiles  till  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  be 
fulfilled  ” (21 : 24).  But  Matthew  does  the  same  when  he 

the  writer  among  those  who  heard  the  gospel  story  from  the  eye-witnesses  of 
the  life  of  Christ.  It  is  also  evident  from  the  Acts  that  the  writer,  who  is 
identical  with  the  third  Evangelist,  was  an  intimate  companion  of  Paul,  and 
hence  belonged  to  the  first  generation  of  disciples,  which  includes  all  the 
converts  of  the  apostles  from  the  day  of  Pentecost  down  to  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem. 

1 Keim  (I.  70)  thus  eloquently  magnifies  this  little  difference  : “ Anders  als 
dem  Matthaus  steht  diesem  Schriftsteller  [Lukas]  das  Wirklichkeitshild  der  Ka- 
tastrophe  der  heiligen  Stadt  in  seiner  ganzen  schrecklichen  Grosse  xor  der  Seek, 
die  langwierige  und  kunstvolle  Belagerung  des  Feindes , die  Heere,  die  befestigten 
Lager , der  Ring  der  Absperrung,  die  tausend  Bedrangnisse , die  Blutarbeit  des 
Schwerts , die  Gefangenfuhrung  des  Volks,  der  Tempd , die  Stadt  dem  Boden 
gleich , Alles  unter  dem  emsten  Gesichtspunkt  eines  Strafgerichtes  Gottes  fur 
die  Ermordung  des  Gesandten.  Ja  uber  die  Katastrophe  hinaus , die  dusserste 
Pei'spektive  des  ersten  Evangelisten,  dehnt  sich  dem  neuen  Geschichtschreiber 
eine  neue  unbestimmbar  grosse  Periode  der  Trummerlage  Jerusalems  unter  dem 
ehernen  Tritt  der  Heiden  und  heidnischer  Weltzeiten,  innerhalb  deren  er  selber 
schreibt.  Unter  solchen  Umstdnden  hat  die  grosse  Zukunftsrede  Jesu  bci  aider 
Sorgfalt,  die  wesentlichen  Zuge,  sogar  die  Wiederkunft  in  diesem  1 Geschlecht  ’ zu 
halten , die  mannigfaltigsten  Aenderungen  erlitten .”  The  same  argument  is 
urged  more  soberly  by  Holtzmann  ( Syn . Evang.,  406  sq.),  and  even  by  Glider 
(in  Herzog,  IX.  19)  and  Weiss  (in  Meyer,  6th  ed.,  p.  243),  but  they  assume 
that  Luke  wrote  only  a few  years  after  Matthew. 

2 “ It  is  psychologically  impossible,”  says  Godet  (p.  543),  “that  Luke  should 
have  indulged  in  manipulating  at  pleasure  the  sayings  of  that  Being  on  whom 
his  faith  was  fixed,  whom  he  regarded  as  the  Son  of  God.” 


674 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


reports  that  Christ  predicted  and  commanded  the  preaching  of 
the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  in  all  parts  of  the  world  before  the 
end  can  come  (Matt.  24:14;  28:19;  comp.  Mark  16 : 15). 
And  even  Paul  said,  almost  in  the  same  words  as  Luke,  twelve 
years  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem : “ Blindness  is  hap- 
pened to  Israel  until  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in  ” 
(Rom.  11 : 25).  Must  we  therefore  put  the  composition  of 
Romans  after  a.d.  70?  On  the  other  hand,  Luke  reports  as 
clearly  as  Matthew  and  Mark  the  words  of  Christ,  that  “ this 
generation  shall  not  pass  away  till  all  things”  (the  preceding 
prophecies)  “ shall  be  fulfilled  ” (21 : 32).  Why  did  he  not  omit 
this  passage  if  he  intended  to  interpose  a larger  space  of  time 
between  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  end  of  the 
world  ? 

The  eschatological  discourses  of  our  Lord,  then,  are  essentially 
the  same  in  all  the  Synoptists,  and  present  the  same  difficulties, 
which  can  only  be  removed  by  assuming : (1)  that  they  refer 
both  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  end  of  the  world, 
two  analogous  events,  the  former  being  typical  of  the  latter ; 
(2)  that  the  two  events,  widely  distant  in  time,  are  represented 
in  close  proximity  of  space  after  the  manner  of  prophetic  vision 
in  a panoramic  picture.  We  must  also  remember  that  the  pre- 
cise date  of  the  end  of  the  world  was  expressly  disclaimed  even 
by  the  Son  of  God  in  the  days  of  his  humiliation  (Matt.  24:36; 
Mark  13  : 32),  and  is  consequently  beyond  the  reach  of  human 
knowledge  and  calculation.  The  only  difference  is  that  Luke 
more  clearly  distinguishes  the  two  events  by  dividing  the  pro- 
phetical discourses  and  assigning  them  to  different  occasions 
(17 : 20-37  and  21 : 5-33) ; and  here,  as  in  other  cases,  he  is 
probably  more  exact  and  in  harmony  with  several  hints  of  our 
Lord  that  a considerable  interval  must  elapse  between  the  catas* 
trophe  of  Jerusalem  and  the  final  catastrophe  of  the  world. 

Place  of  Composition. 

The  third  Gospel  gives  no  hint  as  to  the  place  of  composition. 
Ancient  tradition  is  uncertain,  and  modern  critics  are  divided 


§ 83.  John. 


675 


between  Greece,1  Alexandria,3  Ephesus,*  Caesarea,4  Home.4  It 
was  probably  written  in  sections  during  the  longer  residence  of 
the  author  at  Philippi,  Caesarea,  and  Home,  but  we  cannot  tell 
where  it  was  completed  and  published.8 


§ 83.  John . 

See  Literature  on  John,  § 40,  pp.  405  sqq.  ; Life  and  Character  of  John, 
§§  41-43,  pp.  411  sqq.  ; Theology  of  John,  § 72,  pp.  549  sqq. 


The  best  comes  last.  The  fourth  Gospel  is  the  Gospel  of 
Gospels,  the  holy  of  holies  in  the  New  Testament.  The  favorite 
disciple  and  bosom  friend  of  Christ,  the  protector  of  his  mother, 
the  survivor  of  the  apostolic  age  was  pre-eminently  qualified  by 
nature  and  grace  to  give  to  the  church  the  inside  view  of  that 
most  wonderful  person  that  ever  walked  on  earth.  In  his  early 
youth  he  had  absorbed  the  deepest  words  of  his  Master,  and 
treasured  them  in  a faithful  heart ; in  extreme  old  age,  yet  with 
the  fire  and  vigor  of  manhood,  he  reproduced  them  under  the 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  who  dwelt  in  him  and  led  him,  as 
well  as  the  other  disciples,  into  “ the  whole  truth.” 

His  Gospel  is  the  golden  sunset  of  the  age  of  inspiration,  and 
sheds  its  lustre  into  the  second  and  all  succeeding  centuries  of 
the  church.  It  was  written  at  Ephesus  when  Jerusalem  lay  in 
ruins,  when  the  church  had  finally  separated  from  the  syna- 
gogue, when  “the  Jews”  and  the  Christians  were  two  distinct 
races,  when  Jewish  and  Gentile  believers  had  melted  into  a 
homogeneous  Christian  community,  a little  band  in  a hostile 

1 Jerome  : Achaia  and  Bceotia  ; Hilgenfeld  (in  1858) : Achaia  or  Macedonia  ; 
Godet  (in  his  first  ed.)  : Corinth,  in  the  house  of  Gaius  (Rom.  16  : 23),  but 
more  indefinitely  in  the  second  ed.  : Achaia. 

* The  Peshito,  which  gives  the  title  : “ Gospel  of  Luke  the  Evangelist,  which 
he  published  and  preached  in  Greek  in  Alexandria  the  Great.” 

Kostlin  and  Overbeck,  also  Hilgenfeld  in  1875  {Einleit. , p.  612). 

4 Michaelis,  Kuinol,  Schott,  Thiersch,  and  others. 

5 Hug,  Ewald,  Zeller,  Holtzmann,  Keim,  Davidson. 

6 Weiss,  in  the  sixth  ed.  of  Meyer  (p.  244)  : “ Wo  das  Evang.  geschrieben  sei, 
ist  vollig  unbekannV ’ 


676 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


world,  yet  strong  in  faith,  full  of  hope  and  joy,  and  certain  of 
victory. 

For  a satisfactory  discussion  of  the  difficult  problems  involved 
in  this  Gospel  and  its  striking  contrast  with  the  Synoptic  Gos- 
pels, we  must  keep  in  view  the  fact  that  Christ  communed  with 
the  apostles  after  as  well  as  before  his  visible  departure,  and 
spoke  to  them  through  that  “ other  Advocate  ” whom  he  sent  to 
them  from  the  Father,  and  who  brought  to  remembrance  all 
things  he  had  said  unto  them.1  Here  lies  the  guarantee  of  the 
truthfulness  of  a picture  which  no  human  artist  could  have 
drawn  without  divine  inspiration.  Under  any  other  view  the 
fourth  Gospel,  and  indeed  the  whole  Hew  Testament,  becomes 
the  strangest  enigma  in  the  history  of  literature  and  incapable 
of  any  rational  solution. 

John  and  the  Synoptists. 

If  John  wrote  long  after  the  Synoptists,  we  could,  of  course, 
not  expect  from  him  a repetition  of  the  story  already  so  well 
told  by  three  independent  witnesses.  But  what  is  surprising  is 
the  fact  that,  coming  last,  he  should  produce  the  most  original 
of  all  the  Gospels. 

The  transition  from  Matthew  to  Mark,  and  from  Mark  to 
Luke  is  easy  and  natural ; but  in  passing  from  any  of  the 
Synoptists  to  the  fourth  Gospel  we  breathe  a different  atmos- 
phere, and  feel  as  if  we  were  suddenly  translated  from  a fertile 
valley  to  the  height  of  a mountain  with  a boundless  vision  over 
new  scenes  of  beauty  and  grandeur.  We  look  in  vain  for  a 
genealogy  of  Jesus,  for  an  account  of  his  birth,  for  the  sermons 
of  the  Baptist,  for  the  history  of  the  temptation  in  the  wilder- 
ness, the  baptism  in  the  Jordan,  and  the  transfiguration  on  the 
Mount,  for  a list  of  the  Twelve,  for  the  miraculous  cures  of 
demoniacs.  John  says  nothing  of  the  institution  of  the  church 
and  the  sacraments  ; though  he  is  full  of  the  mystical  union  and 
communion  which  is  the  essence  of  the  church,  and  presents  the 
spiritual  meaning  of  baptism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper  (ch.  3 and  6). 

1 John  14  : 26 ; 16  : 13.  Comp.  Matt.  10  : 19,  20 ; Luke  12  : 12 ; Acts  4 : 8. 


§ 83.  joiin. 


677 


He  omits  the  ascension,  though  it  is  promised  through  Mary 
Magdalene  (20  : 17).  lie  has  not  a word  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  and  the  Lord’s  Prayer,  none  of  the  inimitable  parables 
about  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  none  of  those  telling  answers 
to  the  entangling  questions  of  the  Pharisees.  He  omits  the 
prophecies  of  the  downfall  of  Jerusalem  and  the  end  of  the 
world,  and  most  of  those  proverbial,  moral  sentences  and  maxims 
of  surpassing  wisdom  which  are  strung  together  by  the  Synop- 
tists  like  so  many  sparkling  diamonds. 

But  in  the  place  of  these  Synoptical  records  John  gives  us  an 
abundance  of  new  matter  of  equal,  if  not  greater,  interest  and 
importance.  Piglit  at  the  threshold  we  are  startled,  as  by  a 
peal  of  thunder  from  the  depths  of  eternity : “ In  the  beginning 
was  the  Word.”  And  as  we  proceed  we  hear  about  the  creation 
of  the  world,  the  shining  of  the  true  light  in  darkness,  the  pre- 
paratory revelations,  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos,  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Baptist  to  the  Lamb  of  God.  We  listen  with  in- 
creasing wonder  to  those  mysterious  discourses  about  the  new 
birth  of  the  Spirit,  the  water  of  life,  the  bread  of  life  from 
heaven,  about  the  relation  of  the  eternal  and  only-begotten 
Son  to  the  Father,  to  the  world,  and  to  believers,  the  mission  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  the  promise  of  the  many  mansions  in  heaven, 
the  farewell  to  the  disciples,  and  at  last  that  sacerdotal  prayer 
which  brings  us  nearest  to  the  throne  and  the  beating  heart  of 
God.  John  alone  reports  the  interviews  with  Nicodemus,  the 
woman  of  Samaria,  and  the  Greek  foreigners.  He  records  six 
miracles  not  mentioned  by  the  Synoptists,  and  among  them  the 
two  greatest — the  changing  of  water  into  wine  and  the  raising 
of  Lazarus  from  the  grave.  And  where  he  meets  the  Synop- 
tists, as  in  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  he  adds  the  mys- 
terious discourse  on  the  spiritual  feeding  of  believers  by  the 
bread  of  life  which  has  been  going  on  ever  since.  He  makes 
the  nearest  approach  to  his  predecessors  in  the  closing  chapters 
on  the  betrayal,  the  denial  of  Peter,  the  trial  before  the  eccle- 
siastical and  civil  tribunals,  the  crucifixion  and  resurrection,  but 
even  here  he  is  more  exact  and  circumstantial,  and  adds  inter- 


018 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


esting  details  which  bear  the  unmistakable  marks  of  personal 
observation. 

He  fills  out  the  ministry  of  Christ  in  Judaea,  among  the 
hierarchy  and  the  people  of  Jerusalem,  and  extends  it  over 
three  years ; while  the  Synoptists  seem  to  confine  it  to  one  year 
and  dwell  chiefly  on  his  labors  among  the  peasantry  of  Galilee 
But  on  close  inspection  John  leaves  ample  room  for  the  Gali- 
laean,  and  the  Synoptists  for  the  Judaean  ministry.  None  of  the 
Gospels  is  a complete  biography.  John  expressly  disclaims  this 
(20  : 31).  Matthew  implies  repeated  visits  to  the  holy  city  when 
he  makes  Christ  exclaim : “ O Jerusalem,  Jerusalem  . . . how 
often  would  I have  gathered  thy  children  together  ” (23  : 37 ; 
comp.  27 : 57).  On  the  other  hand  John  records  several  mira- 
cles in  Cana,  evidently  only  as  typical  examples  of  many  (2  : 1 
sqq. ; 4 : 47  sqq. ; 6 : 1 sqq.).  But  in  Jerusalem  the  great  con- 
flict between  light  and  darkness,  belief  and  unbelief,  was  most 
fully  developed  and  matured  to  the  final  crisis ; and  this  it  was 
one  of  his  chief  objects  to  describe. 

The  differences  between  John  and  the  Synoptists  are  many 
and  great,  but  there  are  no  contradictions. 

The  Occasion. 

Irenseus,  who,  as  a native  of  Asia  Minor  and  a spiritual 
grand-pupil  of  John,  is  entitled  to  special  consideration,  says : 
“ Afterward”  [i.e.,  after  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke]  “John, 
the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  who  also  had  leaned  upon  his  breast, 
did  himself  publish  a Gospel  during  his  residence  at  Ephesus  in 
Asia.” 1 In  another  place  he  makes  the  rise  of  the  Gnostic 
heresy  the  prompting  occasion  of  the  composition.2 

A curious  tradition,  which  probably  contains  a grain  of  truth, 
traces  the  composition  to  a request  of  John’s  fellow-disciples 
and  elders  of  Ephesus.  “ Fast  with  me,”  said  John,  according 
to  the  Muratorian  fragment  (170),  “for  three  days  from  this 
time”  [when  the  request  was  made],  “and  whatever  shall  be 
revealed  to  each  of  us  ” [concerning  my  composing  the  Gospel], 

1 Adv.  Hcer III.,  cap.  1,  § 2.  * Ibid.,  III.  11,  1. 


g 83.  JOHN. 


679 


“ let  us  relate  it  to  one  another.  On  the  same  night  it  was  re- 
vealed to  Andrew,  one  of  the  apostles,  that  John  should  relate 
all  things  in  his  own  name,  aided  by  the  revision  of  all.1 2  . . . 
What  wonder  is  it  then  that  John  brings  forward  every  detail 
with  so  much  emphasis,  even  in  his  Epistles,  saying  of  himself, 
What  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes,  and  heard  with  our  ears,  and 
our  hands  have  handled,  these  things  have  we  written  unto  you. 
For  so  he  professes  that  he  was  not  only  an  eye-witness,  hut 
also  a hearer,  and  moreover  a writer  of  all  the  wonderful  works 
of  the  Lord  in  their  historical  order.” 3 

The  mention  of  Andrew  in  this  fragment  is  remarkable,  for 
he  was  associated  with  John  as  a pupil  of  the  Baptist  and  as  the 
first  called  to  the  school  of  Christ  (John  1 : 35-40).  He  was 
also  prominent  in  other  ways  and  stood  next  to  the  beloved 
three,  or  even  next  to  his  brother  Peter  in  the  catalogues  of  the 
apostles.3 

Yictorinus  of  Pettau  (d.  about  304),  in  the  Scholia  on  the 
Apocalypse,  says  that  John  wrote  the  Gospel  after  the  Apoca- 
lypse, in  consequence  of  the  spread  of  the  Gnostic  heresy  and 
at  the  request  of  “ all  the  bishops  from  the  neighboring  prov- 
inces.” 4 5 

Jerome,  on  the  basis  of  a similar  tradition,  reports  that  John, 
being  constrained  by  his  brethren  to  write,  consented  to  do  so  if 
all  joined  in  a fast  and  prayer  to  God,  and  after  this  fast,  being 
saturated  with  revelation  ( revelatione  saturatus ),  he  indited  the 
heaven-sent  preface : “ In  the  beginning  was  the  Word.” 6 

1 “ lit  recognoscentibus  omnibus,  Joannes  suo  nomine  cuncta  describeret .” 

2 “ Sic  enim  non  solum  visor  em,  sed  et  auditor em,  sed  et  scriptorem  omnium 
mirabUium  Domini  per  ordinem  profitetur.”  See  the  Latin  text  as  published 
by  Tregelles,  also  in  Charteris,  l.c.,  p.  3,  and  the  translation  of  Westcott,  His- 
tory of  the  Canon,  p.  187. 

3 Matt.  10  : 2 ; Luke  6:14;  Mark  3 : 16  ; 13  : 3 ; John  1 : 41  ; 12  : 22  ; Acts 
1 : 13. 

4 Quoted  by  Westcott  and  Hilgenfeld.  I will  add  the  original  from  Migne, 

Patrol.,  V.  333  : “ Cum  enim  essent  Valentinus  et  Cerinthus , et  Ebion,  et  cater } 
scho/ce  satance  diffusi  per  orbem , convenerunt  ad  ilium  de  finitimis  provinciis 
omnes  episcopi,  et  compulerunt  eum,  ut  et  ipse  testimonium  conscriberet.  ” 

5 Preface  to  Com.  in  Matt. 


680 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Possibly  those  fellow-disciples  and  pupils  who  prompted  John 
to  write  his  Gospel,  were  the  same  who  afterward  added  their 
testimony  to  the  genuineness  of  the  book,  speaking  in  the 
plural  (“  we  know  that  his  witness  is  true,”  21  : 24),  one  of 
them  acting  as  scribe  (“  I suppose,”  ver.  25). 

The  outward  occasion  does  not  exclude,  of  course,  the  inward 
prompting  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  is  in  fact  implied  in  this 
tradition,  but  it  shows  how  far  the  ancient  church  was  from 
such  a mechanical  theory  of  inspiration  as  ignores  or  denies  the 
human  and  natural  factors  in  the  composition  of  the  apostolic 
writings.  The  preface  of  Luke  proves  the  same. 

The  Object. 

The  fourth  Gospel  does  not  aim  at  a complete  biography  of 
Christ,  but  distinctly  declares  that  Jesus  wrought  “ many  other 
signs  in  the  presence  of  the  disciples  which  are  not  written  in 
this  book  ” (20  : 30  ; comp.  21 : 25). 

The  author  plainly  states  his  object,  to  which  all  other  ob- 
jects must  be  subordinate  as  merely  incidental,  namely,  to  lead 
his  readers  to  the  faith  “ that  Jesus  is  the  Christ , the  Son  of 
God / and  that  believing  they  may  have  life  in  his  name” 
(20 : 31).  This  includes  three  points : (1)  the  Messiahship  of 
Jesus,  which  was  of  prime  importance  to  the  Jews,  and  was  the 
sole  or  at  least  the  chief  aim  of  Matthew,  the  Jewish  Evan- 
gelist ; (2)  the  Divine  Sonship  of  Jesus,  which  was  the  point 
to  be  gained  with  the  Gentiles,  and  which  Luke,  the  Gentile 
Evangelist,  had  also  in  view ; (3)  the  practical  benefit  of  such 
faith,  to  gain  true,  spiritual,  eternal  life  in  Him  and  through 
Him  who  is  the  personal  embodiment  and  source  of  eternal 
life. 

To  this  liistorico-didactic  object  all  others  which  have  been 
mentioned  must  be  subordinated.  The  book  is  neither  polemic 
and  apologetic,  nor  supplementary,  nor  irenic,  except  incident- 
ally and  unintentionally,  as  it  serves  all  these  purposes.  The 
writer  wrote  in  full  view  of  the  condition  and  needs  of  the 
church  at  the  close  of  the  first  century,  and  shaped  his  record 


§ 83.  JOHN. 


681 


accordingly,  taking  for  granted  a general  knowledge  of  tlie  older 
Gospels,  and  refuting  indirectly,  by  the  statement  of  facts  and 
truths,  the  errors  of  the  day.  Hence  there  is  some  measure  of 
truth  in  those  theories  which  have  made  an  incidental  aim  the 
chief  or  only  aim  of  the  book. 

1.  The  anti -heretical  theory  was  started  by  Irenaeus.  Being 
himself  absorbed  in  the  controversy  with  Gnosticism  and  find- 
ing the  strongest  weapons  in  John,  he  thought  that  John’s 
motive  was  to  root  out  the  error  of  Cerinthus  and  of  the  Nico- 
laitans  by  showing  that  “ there  is  one  God  who  made  all  things 
by  his  word ; and  not,  as  they  say,  one  who  made  the  world, 
and  another,  the  Father  of  the  Lord.”1  Jerome  adds  the  oppo- 
site error  of  Ebionism,  Ewald  that  of  the  disciples  of  the  Bap- 
tist. 

No  doubt  the  fourth  Gospel,  by  the  positive  statement  of  the 
truth,  is  the  most  effective  refutation  of  Gnostic  dualism  and 
doketism,  which  began  to  raise  its  head  in  Asia  Minor  toward 
the  close  of  the  first  century.  It  shows  the  harmony  of  the 
ideal  Christ  of  faith  and  the  real  Christ  of  history,  which  the 
ancient  and  modern  schools  of  Gnosticism  are  unable  to  unite  in 
one  individual.  But  it  is  not  on  this  account  a polemical  trea- 
tise, and  it  even  had  by  its  profound  speculation  a special  attrac- 
tion for  Gnostics  and  philosophical  rationalists,  from  Basilides 
down  to  Baur.  The  ancient  Gnostics  made  the  first  use  of  it 
and  quoted  freely  from  the  prologue,  e.g.,  the  passage:  “The 
true  light,  which  enlighteneth  every  man,  was  coming  into  the 
world  ” (1 : 9).2 

The  polemical  aim  is  more  apparent  in  the  first  Epistle  of 
John,  which  directly  warns  against  the  anti-Christian  errors 
then  threatening  the  church,  and  may  be  called  a doctrinal  and 
practical  postscript  to  the  Gospel. 

2.  The  supplementary  theory.  Clement  of  Alexandria  (about 
200)  states,  on  the  authority  of  “ presbyters  of  an  earlier  genera- 
tion,” that  John,  at  the  request  of  his  friends  and  the  prompt- 
ing of  the  divine  Spirit,  added  a spiritual  Gospel  to  the  older 

1 Adv.  Hcer .,  III.  11,  1.  2 Basilides  in  Hippolytus,  Ref.  Hcer.,  VII.  22. 


682 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


bodily  Gospels  which  set  forth  the  outward  facts.1  The  dis- 
tinction is  ingenious.  John  is  more  spiritual  and  ideal  than  the 
Synoptists,  and  he  represents  as  it  were  the  esoteric  tradition  as 
distinct  from  the  exoteric  tradition  of  the  church.  Eusebius  re- 
cords also  as  a current  opinion  that  John  intended  to  supply  an 
account  of  the  earlier  period  of  Christ’s  ministry  which  was 
omitted  by  the  other  Evangelists.3  John  is  undoubtedly  a most 
welcome  supplementer  both  in  matter  and  spirit,  and  furnishes 
in  part  the  key  for  the  full  understanding  of  the  Synoptists, 
yet  he  repeats  many  important  events,  especially  in  the  closing 
chapters,  and  his  Gospel  is  as  complete  as  any.3 

3.  The  Irenic  tendency-theory  is  a modern  Tubingen  inven- 
tion. It  is  assumed  that  the  fourth  Gospel  is  purely  speculative 
or  theological,  the  last  and  crowning  literary  production  which 
completed  the  process  of  unifying  Jewish  and  Gentile  Chris- 
tianity and  melting  them  into  the  one  Catholic  church  of  the 
second  century. 

No  doubt  it  is  an  Irenicon  of  the  church  in  the  highest  and 
best  sense  of  the  term,  and  a prophecy  of  the  church  of  the 
future,  when  all  discords  of  Christendom  past  and  present  will 
be  harmonized  in  the  perfect  union  of  Christians  with  Christ, 
which  is  the  last  object  of  his  sacerdotal  prayer.  But  it  is  not 
an  Irenicon  at  the  expense  of  truth  and  facts. 

1 In  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  VI.  14  (quoting  from  the  Hypotyposes) : rbv  'loaavrqv 
€<rxarov  <rvvib6vra  '6ti  Tck  crwfxaTiKa  iv  ro7s  cvayye\lois  beb-rjkcorai  irpoTpaireyra  {mb 
ruu  yvcapl/Mov  [V. e. , either  well  known  friends,  or  distinguished,  notable  men], 
Tn/ev/xari  &eo(popnlbivTa,  irpevyariKbu  tt oirj(rai  evayyiXiov.  Origen  had  a similar 
view,  namely,  that  John  alone  among  the  Evangelists  clearly  teaches  the 
divinity  of  Christ.  Tom.  1 : 6 in  Joan.  (Opp.,  IV.  6). 

2 H.  E.,  III.  24.  Jerome  repeats  this  view  and  connects  it  with  the  anti- 
heretical  aim,  De  vir.  iUustr.,  c.  9,  comp.  Com.  in  Matt.  Prooem.  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia  thought  that  John  intended  to  supplement  the  Synoptists  chiefly 
by  the  discourses  on  the  divinity  of  Christ.  See  Fritzsche’s  ed.  of  fragments 
of  his  Commentaries  on  the  New  Test.,  Turici,  p.  19  sq.  (quoted  by  Hilgen- 
feld,  Einleitung,  p.  696). 

3 Godet  expresses  the  same  view  (I.  362) : “ Cette  intention  de  completer  les 
recits  anterieurs , soit  au  point  de  rue  hwtorique , comme  Va  pense  Eusbbe , soit 
sous  un  rapport  phis  spirituel,  comme  Va  declare  Clement  d? Alexandrie,  est  done 
parfaitement  fondee  en  fait ; nous  la  constatons  comme  un  but  secondaire  et, 
pour  mieux  dire , comme  moyen  servant  au  but  principal.” 


§ 83.  joiin. 


683 


In  carrying  ont  their  hypothesis  the  Tubingen  critics  have  re- 
sorted to  the  wildest  fictions.  It  is  said  that  the  author  depre- 
ciated the  Mosaic  dispensation  and  displayed  jealousy  of  Peter. 
How  in  the  world  could  this  promote  peace  ? It  would  rather 
have  defeated  the  object.  But  there  is  no  shadow  of  proof  for 
such  an  assertion.  While  the  author  opposes  the  unbelieving 
Jews,  he  shows  the  highest  reverence  for  the  Old  Testament, 
and  derives  salvation  from  the  Jews.  Instead  of  showing 
jealousy  of  Peter,  he  introduces  his  new  name  at  the  first  inter- 
view with  Jesus  (1 : 42),  reports  his  great  confession  even  more 
fully  than  Matthew  (6  : 68,  69),  puts  him  at  the  head  of  the  list 
of  the  apostles  (21 : 2),  and  gives  him  his  due  prominence 
throughout  down  to  the  last  interview  when  the  risen  Lord 
committed  to  him  the  feeding  of  his  sheep  (21  : 15-19).  This 
misrepresentation  is  of  a piece  with  the  other  Tubingen  myth 
adopted  by  Penan,  that  the  real  John  in  the  Apocalypse  pur- 
sues a polemical  aim  against  Paul  and  deliberately  excludes  him 
from  the  rank  of  the  twelve  Apostles.  And  yet  Paul  himself, 
in  the  acknowledged  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  represents  John 
as  one  of  the  three  pillar-apostles  who  recognized  his  peculiar 
gift  for  the  apostolate  of  the  Gentiles  and  extended  to  him  the 
right  hand  of  fellowship. 


Analysis. 

The  object  of  John  determined  the  selection  and  arrange- 
ment of  the  material.  His  plan  is  more  clear  and  systematic 
than  that  of  the  Synoptists.  It  brings  out  the  growing  conflict 
between  belief  and  unbelief,  between  light  and  darkness,  and 
leads  step  by  step  to  the  great  crisis  of  the  cross,  and  to  the 
concluding  exclamation  of  Thomas,  “ My  Lord  and  my  God.” 

In  the  following  analysis  the  sections  peculiar  to  John  are 
marked  by  a star. 

*1.  The  Prologue.  The  theme  of  the  Gospel : the  Logos, 
the  eternal  Pevealer  of  God : 

(1.)  In  relation  to  God,  1 : 1,  2. 

(2.)  In  relation  to  the  world.  General  revelation,  1 : 3-5. 


684 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.  D.  1-100. 


(3.)  In  relation  to  John  the  Baptist  and  the  Jews 
Particular  revelation,  1 : 6-13. 

(4.)  The  incarnation  of  the  Logos,  and  its  effect 
upon  the  disciples,  1 : 14-18. 

II.  The  Public  Manifestation  of  the  Incarnate  Logos  in 
Active  Word  and  Work,  1 : 19  to  12  : 50. 

*(1.)  The  preparatory  testimony  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist pointing  to  Jesus  as  the  promised  and 
expected  Messiah,  and  as  the  Lamb  of  God 
that  beareth  the  sin  of  the  world,  1 : 19-37. 

*(2.)  The  gathering  of  the  first  disciples,  1 : 38-51. 

*(3.)  The  first  sign  : the  changing  of  water  into  wine 
at  Cana  in  Galilee,  2 : 1-11.  First  sojourn 
in  Capernaum,  2 : 12.  First  Passover  and 
journey  to  Jerusalem  during  the  public 
ministry,  2 : 13. 

*(4.)  The  reformatory  cleansing  of  the  Temple, 
2 : 14-22.  (Recorded  also  by  the  Synop- 
tists,  but  at  the  close  of  the  public  minis- 
try.) Labors  among  the  Jews  in  Jerusalem, 
2 : 23-25. 

*(5.)  Conversation  with  Hicodemus,  representing  the 
timid  disciples,  the  higher  classes  among  the 
Jews.  Regeneration  the  condition  of  en- 
tering into  the  kingdom  of  God,  3 : 1-15. 
The  love  of  God  in  the  sending  of  his  Son 
to  save  the  world,  3 : 16-21.  (Jerusalem.) 

*(6.)  Labors  of  Jesus  in  Judaea.  The  testimony  of 
John  the  Baptist : He  must  increase,  but  I 
must  decrease,  3 : 22-36.  (Departure  of 
Jesus  into  Galilee  after  John’s  imprison- 
ment, 4 : 1-3 ; comp.  Matt.  4:12;  Mark 
1:14;  Luke  4 : 14.) 

*(7.)  Labors  in  Samaria  on  the  journey  from  Judaea 
to  Galilee.  The  woman  of  Samaria ; Jacob’s 
well ; the  water  of  life ; the  worship  of  God 


§ 83.  JOHN. 


685 


the  Spirit  in  spirit  and  in  truth ; the  fields 
ripening  for  the  harvest,  4 : 1-42. 

Jesus  teaches  publicly  in  Galilee,  4 : 43- 
45  (comp.  Matt.  4 : 17 ; Mark  1 : 14,  15 ; 
Luke  4 : 14,  15). 

*(8.)  Jesus  again  visits  Cana  in  Galilee  and  heals  a 
nobleman’s  son  at  Capernaum,  4 : 46-54. 

*(9.)  Second  journey  to  Jerusalem  at  a feast  (the 
second  Passover  ?).  The  healing  of  the  in- 
firm man  at  the  pool  of  Bethesda  on  the 
Sabbath,  5 : 1-18.  Beginning  of  the  hos- 
tility of  the  Jews.  Discourse  of  Christ  on 
his  relation  to  the  Father,  and  his  authority 
to  judge  the  world,  5 : 19-47. 

(10.)  The  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  6 : 1-14. 
The  stilling  of  the  tempest,  6 : 15-21. 

* The  mysterious  discourse  in  Capernaum 
on  the  bread  of  life ; the  sifting  of  the  dis- 
ciples ; the  confession  of  Peter : “ To  whom 
shall  we  go,”  etc. ; the  hinting  at  the  trea- 
son of  Judas,  6 : 22-71. 

*(11.)  Third  visit  to  Jerusalem,  at  the  feast  of  the  Ta- 
bernacles. The  hasty  request  of  the  brethren 
of  Jesus  who  did  not  believe  on  him.  His 
discourse  in  the  Temple  with  opposite  effect. 
Bising  hostility  of  the  Jews,  and  vain  ef- 
forts of  the  hierarchy  to  seize  him  as  a false 
teacher  misleading  the  people,  7 : 1-52. 

[*(12a.)  The  woman  taken  in  adultery  and  pardoned 
by  Jesus,  7 : 53  to  8 : 11.  Jerusalem.  Prob- 
ably an  interpolation  from  oral  tradition, 
authentic  and  true,  but  not  from  the  pen 
of  John.  Also  found  at  the  end,  and  at 
Luke  21.] 

*(12b.)  Discourse  on  the  light  of  the  world.  The 
children  of  God  and  the  children  of  the 


686 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


devil.  Attempts  to  stone  Jesns,  8 : 12- 
59. 

*(13.)  The  healing  of  the  man  born  blind,  on  a Sab- 
bath, and  his  testimony  before  the  Phari- 
sees, 9 : 1-41. 

*(14.)  The  parable  of  the  good  shepherd,  10  : 1-21. 

Speech  at  the  feast  of  Dedication  in  Solo- 
mon’s porch,  10  : 22-39.  Departure  to  the 
country  beyond  the  Jordan,  10  : 40-42. 

*(15.)  The  resurrection  of  Lazarus  at  Bethany,  and 
its  effect  upon  hastening  the  crisis.  The 
counsel  of  Caiaphas.  Jesus  retires  from 
Jerusalem  to  Ephraim,  11 : 1-57. 

(16.)  The  anointing  by  Mary  in  Bethany,  12 : 1-8. 
The  counsel  of  the  chief  priests,  12  : 9-11. 

(17.)  The  entry  into  Jerusalem,  12  : 12-19.  (Comp. 
Matt.  21  : 1-17  ; Mark  11  : 1-11 ; Luke 
19 : 29-44.) 

*(18.)  Visit  of  the  Greeks.  Discourse  of  Jesus  on 
the  grain  of  wheat  which  must  die  to  bear 
fruit ; the  voice  from  heaven ; the  attraction 
of  the  cross;  the  opposite  effect;  reflec- 
tion of  the  Evangelist;  summary  of  the 
speeches  of  Jesus,  12  : 20-50. 

III.  The  Private  Manifestation  of  Christ  in  the  Circle 
of  his  Disciples.  During  the  fourth  and  last  Pass- 
over  week.  Jerusalem,  13  : 1 to  17  : 26. 

*(1.)  Jesus  washes  the  feet  of  the  disciples  before 
the  Passover  meal,  13  : 1-20. 

(2.)  He  announces  the  traitor,  13  : 21-27.  The  de- 
parture of  Judas,  13  : 27-30. 

*(3.)  The  new  commandment  of  love,  13  : 31-35. 

(Here  is  the  best  place  for  the  institution  of 
the  Lord’s  Supper,  omitted  by  John,  but 
reported  by  all  the  Synoptists  and  by  Paul.) 

(4.)  Prophecy  of  Peter’s  denial,  13  : 36-38. 


§ 83.  JOHN. 


687 


*(5.)  The  farewell  discourses  to  the  disciples ; the 
promise  of  the  Paraclete,  and  of  Christ’s 
return,  14  : 1 to  16  : 33. 

*(4.)  The  Sacerdotal  Prayer,  17  : 1-26. 

IY.  The  Glorification  of  Christ  in  the  Crucifixion  and 
Resurrection,  18  : 1 to  20  : 31. 

(1.)  The  passage  over  the  Kedron,  and  the  betrayal, 
18  : 1-11. 

(2.)  Jesus  before  the  high  priests,  Annas  and  Caia- 
phas,  18  : 12-14,  19-24. 

(3.)  Peter’s  denial,  18  : 15-18,  25-27. 

(4.)  J esus  before  the  Roman  governor,  Pontius  Pilate, 
18 : 28  to  19  : 16.  Original  in  part  (19 : 4-16). 

(5.)  The  crucifixion,  19  : 17-37. 

(6.)  The  burial  of  Jesus.  19  : 38-42. 

(7.)  The  resurrection.  Mary  Magdalene,  Peter  and 
John  visit  the  empty  tomb,  20  : 1-10. 

(8.)  Christ  appears  to  Mary  Magdalene,  20  : 11-18. 

*(9.)  Christ  appears  to  the  apostles,  except  Thomas, 
on  the  evening  of  the  resurrection  day, 
20 : 19-23. 

*(10.)  Christ  appears  to  the  apostles,  including 
Thomas,  on  the  following  Lord’s  Day, 
20 : 26-29. 

*(11.)  Object  of  the  Gospel,  20  : 30,  31. 

*V.  The  Appendix  and  Epilogue,  21 : 1-25. 

(1.)  Christ  appears  to  seven  disciples  on  the  lake  of 
Galilee.  The  third  manifestation  to  the 
disciples,  21 : 1-14. 

(2.)  The  dialogue  with  Simon  Peter : “ Lovest  thou 
Me  ? ” “ Feed  My  sheep.”  “ Follow  Me,” 
21 : 15-19. 

(3.)  The  mysterious  word  about  the  beloved  disci- 
ple, 21  : 21-23. 

(4.)  The  attestation  of  the  authorship  of  the  Gospel 
by  the  pupils  of  John,  21 : 24,  25. 


C88 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Characteristics  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

The  Gospel  of  John  is  the  most  original,  the  most  important, 
the  most  influential  book  in  all  literature.  The  great  Origen 
called  it  the  crown  of  the  Gospels,  as  the  Gospels  are  the  crown 
of  all  sacred  writings.1  It  is  pre-eminently  the  spiritual  and 
ideal,  though  at  the  same  time  a most  real  Gospel,  the  truest 
transcript  of  the  original.  It  lifts  the  veil  from  the  holy  of 
holies  and  reveals  the  glory  of  the  Only  Begotten  from  the 
Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth.  It  unites  in  harmony  the  deepest 
knowledge  and  the  purest  love  of  Christ.  We  hear  as  it  were 
his  beating  heart ; we  lay  our  hands  in  his  wound-prints  and  ex- 
claim with  doubting  Thomas : “ My  Lord  and  my  God.”  Xo 
book  is  so  plain  and  yet  so  deep,  so  natural  and  yet  so  full  of 
mystery.  It  is  simple  as  a child  and  sublime  as  a seraph,  gentle 
as  a lamb  and  bold  as  an  eagle,  deep  as  the  sea  and  high  as  the 
heavens. 

It  has  been  praised  as  “ the  unique,  tender,  genuine  Gospel,” 
“ written  by  the  hand  of  an  angel,”  as  “ the  heart  of  Christ,” 
as  “ God’s  love-letter  to  the  world,”  or  “ Christ’s  love-letter  to 
the  church.”  It  has  exerted  an  irresistible  charm  on  many  of 
the  strongest  and  noblest  minds  in  Christendom,  as  Origen  in 
Egypt,  Chrysostom  in  Asia,  Augustin  in  Africa,  the  German 
Luther,  the  French  Calvin,  the  poetic  Herder,  the  critical 
Schleiermacher,  and  a multitude  of  less  famous  writers  of  all 
schools  and  shades  of  thought.  Even  many  of  those  who  doubt 
or  deny  the  apostolic  authorship  cannot  help  admiring  its  more 
than  earthly  beauties.2 

1 Opera,  IV.  6 : toA/xtjtcov  rolvuv  chreTv  airapxb1'  ircurwv  ypcKpwv  elvai  rd 
cvayyeAia,  t£>v  8e  evayyeAlcov  aira pxbv  T b Karh  * Icodvvrjv . 

2 DeWette  says  that  the  discourses  of  Christ  in  John  shine  with  more  than 
earthly  brilliancy  (sie  strahlen  in  mehr  als  irdischem  Brill anlfeuer,  Exeg.  Iland- 
buch , I.  3,  p.  7).  Holtzmann  : “ The  fundamental  ideas  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
lie  far  beyond  the  horizon  of  the  church  in  the  second  century,  and  indeed  of 
the  whole  Christian  church  down  to  the  present  day”  (in  Schenkel’s  “ Bibel- 
Lexik.,”  II.  234).  Baur  and  Keim  (I.  133)  give  the  Gospel  the  highest  praise 
as  a philosophy  of  religion,  but  deny  its  historical  value. 


§ 83.  joiin. 


680 


But  there  are  other  sceptics  who  find  the  Johannean  dis- 
courses monotonous,  tedious,  nebulous,  unmeaning,  hard,  and 
feel  as  much  offended  by  them  as  the  original  hearers.1 

Let  us  point  out  the  chief  characteristics  of  this  book  which 
distinguish  it  from  the  Synoptical  Gospels. 

1.  The  fourth  Gospel  is  the  Gospel  of  the  Incarnation,  that 
is,  of  the  perfect  union  of  the  divine  and  human  in  the  person  of 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  who  for  this  very  reason  is  the  Saviour  of  the 
world  and  the  fountain  of  eternal  life.  “ The  Word  became 
flesh.”  This  is  the  theoretical  theme.  The  writer  begins  with 
the  eternal  pre-existence  of  the  Logos,  and  ends  with  the  adora- 
tion of  his  incarnate  divinity  in^he  exclamation  of  the  sceptical 
Thomas : “ My  Lord  and  my  God ! ” Luke’s  preface  is  historio- 
graphic and  simply  points  to  his  sources  of  information  ; John’s 
prologue  is  metaphysical  and  dogmatic,  and  sounds  the  keynote 
of  the  subsequent  history.  The  Synoptists  begin  with  the  man 
Jesus  and  rise  up  to  the  recognition  of  his  Messiahship  and 
divine  Sonship;  John  descends  from  the  pre-existent  Son  of 
God  through  the  preparatory  revelations  to  his  incarnation  and 
crucifixion  till  he  resumes  the  glory  which  he  had  before  the 
world  began.  The  former  give  us  the  history  of  a divine  man, 

1 Renan  and  John  Stuart  Mill  have  confessed  a strong  antipathy  to  these 
discourses.  Renan’s  last  judgment  on  the  Gospel  of  John  (in  L'eglise  chret ., 
1879,  p.  51)  is  as  follows  : “ On  Va  irop  admire.  11  a de  la  ckaleur,  parfois  une 
sorte  de  sublimite,  mats  quelque  chose  d'enfle,  de  faux . (Tobsur.  La  naivete 
manque  tout  d fait.  L} auteur  ne  raconte  pas  ; il  demontre.  Rien  de  plus 
tatigant  que  ses  longs  recits  de  miracles  et  que  ces  discussions,  roulant  sur  des 
malentendus , oil  les  adversaires  de  Jesus  jouent  le  role  d’ idiots.  Combien  d ce 
pathos  verbeux  nous  preferons  le  doux  style,  tout  hebreu  encore , du  Discours  sur 
la  montagne,  et  cette  limpidite  de  narration  qui  fait  le  char  me  des  evangelistes 
primitifs  / Oeux-ci  nyont  pas  besoin  de  repeter  sans  cesse  que  ce  quHls  racontent 
est  vrai.  Leur  sincerite,  inconsciente  de  V objection,  n'a  pas  cette  soif  febrile  (Tat - 
testations  repetees  qui  montre  que  V incredulite,  le  doute . ont  deja  commence. 
Au  ton  leg&rement  excite  de  ce  nouveau  narrateur , on  dirait  qu'il  a peur  de 
n'etre  pas  cru,  et  qu-il  cherche  d sur  prendre  la  religion  de  son  lecteur  par  des 
affirmations  pleines  d’emphase.”  John  Stuart  Mill  {Three  Essays  on  Religion. 
p.  253)  irreverently  calls  the  discourses  in  John  “poor  stuff,”  imported  from 
Philo  and  the  Alexandrian  Platonists,  and  imagines  that  a multitude  of 
Oriental  Gnostics  might  have  manufactured  such  a book.  But  why  did  they 
not  do  it  ? 


690 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


the  latter  the  history  of  a human  God.  Not  that  he  identifies 
him  with  the  Godhead  (6  $eo<?) ; on  the  contrary,  he  clearly  dis- 
tinguishes the  Son  and  the  Father  and  makes  him  inferior  in 
dignity  (“the  Father  is  greater  than  I”) ; but  he  declares  that 
the  Son  is  “ God  ” (.Seos),  that  is,  of  divine  essence  or  nature. 

And  yet  there  is  no  contradiction  here  between  the  Evan- 
gelists except  for  those  who  deem  a union  of  the  Divine  and 
human  in  one  person  an  impossibility.  The  Christian  Church 
has  always  felt  that  the  Synoptic  and  the  Joliannean  Christ  are 
one  and  the  same,  only  represented  from  different  points  of 
view.  And  in  this  judgment  the  greatest  scholars  and  keenest 
critics,  from  Origen  down  to  the  present  time,  have  concurred. 

For,  on  the  one  hand,  John’s  Christ  is  just  as  real  and  truly 
human  as  that  of  the  Synoptists.  He  calls  himself  the  Son  of 
man  and  “ a man  ” (8  : 40) ; he  “ groaned  in  the  spirit  ” (11 : 33), 
he  “wept”  at  the  grave  of  a friend  (11  : 35),  and  his  “soul” 
was  “ troubled  ” in  the  prospect  of  the  dark  hour  of  crucifixion 
<12  : 27)  and  the  crime  of  the  traitor  (13  : 1).  The  Evangelist 
attests  with  solemn  emphasis  from  what  he  saw  with  his  own 
eyes  that  Jesus  truly  suffered  and  died  (19  : 33-35).1 

The  Synoptic  Christ,  on  the  other  hand,  is  as  truly  elevated 
above  ordinary  mortals  as  the  Joliannean.  It  is  true,  he  does 
not  in  so  many  words  declare  his  pre-existence  as  in  John  (1:1; 
6:62;  8:58;  17:5,  24),  but  it  is  implied,  or  follows  as  a legiti- 
mate consequence.  He  is  conceived  without  sin,  a descendant 
of  David,  and  yet  the  Lord  of  David  (Matt.  22  : 41) ; he  claims 
authority  to  forgive  sins,  for  which  he  is  accused  of  blasphemy  by 
the  Jews  (quite  consistently  from  their  standpoint  of  unbelief) ; 
he  gives  his  life  a ransom  for  the  redemption  of  the  world ; he 
will  come  in  his  glory  and  judge  all  nations ; yea,  in  the  very 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  which  all  schools  of  nationalists  accept 

1 Notwithstanding  such  passages  Dr.  Davidson  asserts  (II.  278) : “In  uniting 
the  only- begotten  Son  of  God  with  the  historical  Jesus,  the  evangelist  implies 
the  absence  of  full  humanity.  The  personality  consists  essentially  of  the 
Logos,  the  flesh  being  only  a temporary  thing.  Body,  soul,  and  spirit  do  not 
oelong  to  Jesus  Christ  ; he  is  the  Logos  incarnate  for  a time,  who  soon  returns 
to  the  original  state  of  oneness  with  the  Father.” 


§ 83.  JOHN. 


691 


as  his  genuine  teachiug,  lie  declares  himself  to  be  the  judge  of 
the  world  (Matt.  7 : 21-23 ; comp.  25  : 31-46),  and  in  the  bap- 
tismal formula  He  associates  himself  and  the  Holy  Spirit  with 
the  eternal  Father,  as  the  connecting  link  between  the  two, 
thus  assuming  a place  on  the  very  throne  of  the  Deity  (28 : 19). 
It  is  impossible  to  rise  higher.  Hence  Matthew,  the  Jewish 
Evangelist,  does  not  hesitate  to  apply  to  Him  the  name  Im- 
manuel, that  is,  “ God  with  us  ” (1 : 23).  Mark  gives  us  the 
Gospel  of  Peter,  the  first  who  confessed  that  Jesus  is  not  only 
“ the  Christ  ” in  his  official  character,  but  also  “ the  Son  of  the 
living  God.”  This  is  far  more  than  a son ; it  designates  his 
unique  personal  relation  to  God  and  forms  the  eternal  basis  of 
his  historical  Messiahship  (Matt.  16:16;  comp.  26  : 63).  The 
two  titles  are  distinct,  and  the  high  priest’s  charge  of  blasphemy 
(26  : 65)  could  only  apply  to  the  latter.  A false  Messiah  would 
be  an  impostor,  not  a blasphemer.  We  could  not  substitute  the 
Messiah  for  the  Son  in  the  baptismal  formula.  Peter,  Mark, 
and  Matthew  were  brought  up  in  the  most  orthodox  mono- 
theism, with  an  instinctive  horror  of  the  least  approach  to 
idolatry,  and  yet  they  looked  up  to  their  Master  with  feelings 
of  adoration.  And,  as  for  Luke,  he  delights  in  representing 
Jesus  throughout  as  the  sinless  Saviour  of  sinners,  and  is  in  full 
sympathy  with  the  theology  of  his  elder  brother  Paul,  who  cer- 
tainly taught  the  pre-existence  and  divine  nature  of  Christ 
several  years  before  the  Gospels  were  written  or  published 
(Rom.  1 : 3,  4 ; 9 : 5 ; 2 Cor.  8:9;  Col.  1 : 15-17 ; Phil.  2 : 6-11). 

2.  It  is  the  Gospel  of  Love.  Its  practical  motto  is : “ God  is 
love.”  In  the  incarnation  of  the  eternal  Word,  in  the  historic 
mission  of  his  Son,  God  has  given  the  greatest  possible  proof  of 
his  love  to  mankind.  In  the  fourth  Gospel  alone  we  read  that 
precious  sentence  which  contains  the  very  essence  of  Chris- 
tianity : “ God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten 
Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  on  him  should  not  perish,  but 
have  eternal  life”  (3  : 16).  It  is  the  Gospel  of  the  Good  Shep- 
herd who  laid  down  his  life  for  the  sheep  (10  : 11) ; the  Gospel 
of  the  new  commandment : “ Love  one  another  ” (13  : 34).  And 


692 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


this  was  the  last  exhortation  of  the  aged  disciple  “ whom  Jesus 
loved.” 

But  for  this  very  reason  that  Christ  is  the  greatest  gift 
of  God  to  the  world,  unbelief  is  the  greatest  sin  and  blackest 
ingratitude,  which  carries  in  it  its  own  condemnation.  The 
guilt  of  unbelief,  the  contrast  between  faith  and  unbelief  is 
nowhere  set  forth  in  such  strong  light  as  in  the  fourth  Gospel. 
It  is  a consuming  fire  to  all  enemies  of  Christ. 

3.  It  is  the  Gospel  of  Mystic  Symbolism.1  The  eight  mira- 
cles it  records  are  significant  “ signs  ” (arj/xela)  which  symbolize 
the  character  and  mission  of  Christ,  and  manifest  his  glory. 
They  are  simply  his  “ works  ” (epya),  the  natural  manifestations 
of  his  marvellous  person  performed  with  the  same  ease  as  men 
perform  their  ordinary  works.  The  turning  of  water  into  wine 
illustrates  his  transforming  power,  and  fitly  introduces  his  pub* 
lie  ministry ; the  miraculous  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  set 
him  forth  as  the  Bread  of  life  for  the  spiritual  nourishment  oj 
countless  believers ; the  healing  of  the  man  born  blind,  as  the 
Light  of  the  world ; the  raising  of  Lazarus,  as  the  Resurrection 
and  the  Life.  The  miraculous  draught  of  fishes  shows  the  dis- 
ciples to  be  fishers  of  men,  and  insures  the  abundant  results  of 
Christian  labor  to  the  end  of  time.  The  serpent  in  the  wilder- 
ness prefigured  the  cross.  The  Baptist  points  to  him  as  the 
Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world.  He 
represents  himself  under  the  significant  figures  of  the  Door,  the 
good  Shepherd,  the  Vine ; and  these  figures  have  inspired 
Christian  art  and  poetry,  and  guided  the  meditations  of  the 
church  ever  since. 

The  whole  Old  Testament  is  a type  and  prophecy  of  the  Hew. 
“ The  law  was  given  by  Moses ; grace  and  truth  came  by  Jesus 
Christ”  (1 : 17).  Herein  lies  the  vast  superiority  of  Christianity, 
and  yet  the  great  importance  of  Judaism  as  an  essential  part  in 
the  scheme  of  redemption.  Clearly  and  strongly  as  John  brings 
out  the  opposition  to  the  unbelieving  Jews,  he  is  yet  far  from 
going  to  the  Gnostic  extreme  of  rejecting  or  depreciating  the 

1 Lange,  Westcott,  Milligan  and  Moulton  dwell  at  length  on  this  feature. 


§ 83.  joiin. 


G93 


Old  Testament ; on  the  contrary  “ salvation  comes  from  tli6 
Jews”  (says  Christ  to  the  Samaritan  woman,  4 : 22) ; and  turn- 
ing the  Scripture  argument  against  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  who 
searched  the  letter  of  the  Scriptures,  but  ignored  the  spirit, 
Christ  confronts  them  with  the  authority  of  Moses  on  whom 
they  fixed  their  hope.  “ If  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would  believe 
me ; for  he  wrote  of  me.  But  ye  believe  not  his  writings,  how 
shall  ye  believe  my  words?”  (5  : 46).  John  sees  Christ  every- 
where in  those  ancient  Scriptures  which  cannot  be  broken.  He 
unfolds  the  true  Messianic  idea  in  conflict  with  the  carnal  per- 
version of  it  among  the  Jews  under  the  guidance  of  the  hier 
archy. 


The  Johannean  and  Synoptic  Discourses  of  Christ. 

4.  John  gives  prominence  to  the  transcendent  Discourses 
about  the  person  of  Christ  and  his  relation  to  the  Father,  to  the 
world,  and  the  disciples.  His  words  are  testimonies,  revealing 
the  inner  glory  of  his  person ; they  are  spirit  and  they  are  life. 

Matthew’s  Gospel  is  likewise  didactic ; but  there  is  a marked 
difference  between  the  contents  and  style  of  the  Synoptic  and 
the  Johannean  discourses  of  Jesus.  The  former  discuss  the 
nature  of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  the  fulfilment  of  the  law,  the 
duty  of  holy  obedience,  and  are  popular,  practical,  brief,  pointed, 
sententious,  parabolic,  and  proverbial ; the  latter  touch  the  deep- 
est mysteries  of  theology  and  Christology,  are  metaphysical, 
lengthy,  liable  to  carnal  misunderstanding,  and  scarcely  discern- 
ible from  John’s  own  style  in  the  prologue  and  the  first  Epistle, 
and  from  that  used  by  the  Baptist.  The  transition  is  almost 
imperceptible  in  3 : 16  and  3 : 31. 

Here  we  reach  the  chief  difficulty  in  the  Johannean  problem. 
Here  is  the  strong  point  of  sceptical  criticism.  We  must  freely 
admit  at  the  outset  that  John  so  reproduced  the  words  of  his 
Master  as  to  mould  them  unconsciously  into  his  own  type  of 
thought  and  expression.  lie  revolved  them  again  and  again  in 
his  heart,  they  were  his  daily  food,  and  the  burden  of  his  teach* 


694 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


ing  to  tlie  churches  from  Sunday  to  Sunday;  yet  he  had  to 
translate,  to  condense,  to  expand,  and  to  apply  them ; and  in 
this  process  it  was  unavoidable  that  his  own  reflections  should 
more  or  less  mingle  with  his  recollections.  With  all  the  tenacity 
of  his  memory  it  was  impossible  that  at  such  a great  interval  of 
time  (fifty  or  sixty  years  after  the  events)  he  should  he  able  to 
record  literally  every  discourse  just  as  it  was  spoken;  and  he 
makes  no  such  claim,  but  intimates  that  he  selects  and  sum- 
marizes. 

This  is  the  natural  view  of  the  case,  and  the  same  concession 
is  now  made  by  all  the  champions  of  the  Johannean  authorship 
who  do  not  hold  to  a magical  inspiration  theory  and  turn  the 
sacred  writers  into  unthinking  machines,  contrary  to  their  own 
express  statements,  as  in  the  Preface  of  Luke.  But  we  deny 
that  this  concession  involves  any  sacrifice  of  the  truth  of  his- 
tory or  of  any  lineament  from  the  physiognomy  of  Christ. 
The  difficulty  here  presented  is  usually  overstated  by  the  critics, 
and  becomes  less  and  less,  the  higher  we  rise  in  our  estima- 
tion of  Christ,  and  the  closer  we  examine  the  differences  in 
their  proper  connection.  The  following  reflections  will  aid  the 
student : 

(1)  In  the  first  place  we  must  remember  the  marvellous 
lieighth  and  depth  and  breadth  of  Christ’s  intellect  as  it  appears 
in  the  Synoptists  as  well  as  in  John.  He  commanded  the  whole 
domain  of  religious  and  moral  truth ; he  spake  as  never  man 
spake,  and  the  people  were  astonished  at  his  teaching  (Matt. 
7 : 28,  29  ; Mark  1:22;  6:2;  Luke  4 : 32  ; John  7 : 46).  He 
addressed  not  only  his  own  generation,  but  through  it  all  ages 
and  classes  of  men.  Ho  wonder  that  his  hearers  often  mis- 
understood him.  The  Synoptists  give  examples  of  such  mis- 
understanding as  well  as  John  (comp.  Mark  8:16).  But  who 
will  set  limits  to  his  power  and  psedagogic  wisdom  in  the  matter 
and  form  of  his  teaching  ? Must  he  not  necessarily  have  varied 
his  style  when  he  addressed  the  common  people  in  Galilee,  as 
in  the  Synoptists,  and  the  educated,  proud,  hierarchy  of  Jeru- 
salem, as  in  John  ? Or  when  he  spoke  on  the  mountain,  invit 


§ 83.  jonN. 


695 


ing  the  multitude  to  the  Messianic  Kingdom  at  the  opening  of 
liis  ministry,  and  when  he  took  farewell  from  his  disciples  in 
the  chamber,  in  view  of  the  great  sacrifice  ? Socrates  appears 
very  different  in  Xenophon  and  in  Plato,  yet  we  can  see  him  in 
both.  But  here  is  a far  greater  than  Socrates.1 

(2)  John’s  mind,  at  a period  when  it  was  most  pliable  and 
plastic,  had  been  so  conformed  to  the  mind  of  Christ  that  his 
own  thoughts  and  words  faithfully  reflected  the  teaching  of  his 
Master.  If  there  ever  was  spiritual  sympathy  and  congeniality 
between  two  minds,  it  was  between  Jesus  and  the  disciple  whom 
he  loved  and  whom  he  intrusted  with  the  care  of  his  mother. 
John  stood  nearer  to  his  Lord  than  any  Christian  or  any  of  the 
Synoptists.  “Why  should  not  John  have  been  formed  upon 
the  model  of  Jesus  rather  than  the  Jesus  of  his  Gospel  be  the 
reflected  image  of  himself  ? Surely  it  may  be  left  to  all  candid 
minds  to  say  whether,  to  adopt  only  the  lowest  supposition,  the 
creative  intellect  of  Jesus  was  not  far  more  likely  to  mould  His 
disciple  to  a conformity  with  itself,  than  the  receptive  spirit  of 
the  disciple  to  give  birth  by  its  own  efforts  to  that  conception 
of  a Redeemer  which  so  infinitely  surpasses  the  loftiest  image  of 
man’s  own  creation.” 2 

(3)  John  reproduced  the  discourses  from  the  fulness  of  the 
spirit  of  Christ  that  dwelt  in  him,  and  therefore  without  any 
departure  from  the  ideas.  The  whole  gospel  history  assumes 
that  Christ  did  not  finish,  but  only  began  his  wrork  while  on 
earth,  that  he  carries  it  on  in  heaven  through  his  chosen  organs, 

1 Hase  ( Geschichte  Jesu,  p.  61 ) makes  some  striking  remarks  on  this  paral- 
lel: 4 ‘ Der  Sokrates  des  Xenophon  ist  ein  anderer  als  der  des  Plato,  jeder  hat 
diejenige  Seite  aufgefasst , die  ihm  die  ndchste  und  liebste  war  ; erst  aits  beide 7, 
DarsteUungen  erkennen  wir  den  rechten  Sokrates.  Xenophons  anschaulichc 
Einfachheit  trdgt  das  voile  Geprdge  der  Wahrheit  dessen,  was  er  erzdhlt.  Den- 
noch  dieser  Sokrates , der  sich  im  engen  Kreise  sitUicher  und  politischer  Vorstel- 
lungen  herumdreht , ist  nicht  der  game  Sokrates,  der  weiseste  in  Griechenland, 
der  die  grosse  Revolution  in  den  Geistem  seines  Volks  hervorgerufen  hat.  Dage- 
gen  der  platonische  Sokrates  sich  weit  mehr  zum  Schopfer  der  neuen  Periods 
griechischer  Philosophie  eignet  und  darnach  aussieht , als  habe  er  die  WeisTieil 
vom  Himmd  zur  Erde  gebracht , der  attische  Logos." 

2 Milligan  and  Moulton,  in  their  excellent  Commentary  on  John , Introd.. 
p xxxiii. 


696 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


to  whom  he  promised  mouth  and  wisdom  (Luke  21 : 15 ; Matt. 
10  : 19)  and  his  constant  presence  (Matt.  19  : 20  ; 28  : 20).  The 
disciples  became  more  and  more  convinced  of  the  superhuman 
character  of  Christ  by  the  irresistible  logic  of  fact  and  thought, 
llis  earthly  life  appeared  to  them  as  a transient  state  of  humilia- 
tion which  was  preceded  by  a pre-existent  state  of  glory  with 
the  Father,  as  it  was  followed  by  a permanent  state  of  glory 
after  the  resurrection  and  ascension  to  heaven.  lie  withheld 
from  them  “ many  things  ” because  they  could  not  bear  them 
before  his  glorification  (John  16  : 12).  “ What  I do,”  he  said 

to  Peter,  “ thou  knowest  not  now,  but  thou  shalt  come  to  know 
hereafter  ” (13  : 7).  Some  of  his  deepest  sayings,  which  they 
had  at  first  misunderstood,  were  illuminated  by  the  resurrection 
(2:22;  12  : 16),  and  then  by  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit,  who 
took  things  out  of  the  fulness  of  Christ  and  declared  them  to  the 
disciples  (16  : 13, 14).  Hence  the  farewell  discourses  are  so  full 
of  the  promises  of  the  Spirit  of  truth  who  would  glorify  Christ 
in  their  hearts.  Under  such  guidance  we  may  be  perfectly  sure 
of  the  substantial  faithfulness  of  John’s  record. 

(4)  Beneath  the  surface  of  the  similarity  there  is  a consider- 
able difference  between  the  language  of  Christ  and  the  language 
of  his  disciple.  John  never  attributes  to  Christ  the  designation 
Logos,  which  he  uses  so  prominently  in  the  Prologue  and  the 
first  Epistle.  This  is  very  significant,  and  shows  his  conscien- 
tious care.  He  distinguished  his  own  theology  from  the  teach- 
ing of  his  Master,  no  matter  whether  he  borrowed  the  term 
Logos  from  Philo  (which  cannot  be  proven),  or  coined  it  him- 
self from  his  reflections  on  Old  Testament  distinctions  between 
the  hidden  and  the  revealed  God  and  Christ’s  own  testimonies 
concerning  his  relation  to  the  Father.  The  first  Epistle  of  John 
is  an  echo  of  his  Gospel,  but  with  original  matter  of  his  own 
and  polemical  references  to  the  anti-Christian  errors  of  his  day. 
“The  phrases  of  the  Gospel,”  says  Westcott,  “have  a definite 
historic  connection : they  belong  to  circumstances  which  explain 
them.  The  phrases  in  the  Epistle  are  in  part  generalizations, 
and  in  part  interpretations  of  the  earlier  language  in  view  of 


§ 83.  JOHN.  697 

Christ’s  completed  work  and  of  the  experience  of  the  Christian 
church.” 

As  to  the  speeches  of  the  Baptist,  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  they 
keep,  as  the  same  writer  remarks,  strictly  within  the  limits  sug- 
gested by  the  Old  Testament.  44  What  he  says  spontaneously 
of  Christ  is  summed  up  in  the  two  figures  of  the  4 Lamb  ’ and 
the  4 Bridegroom,’  which  together  give  a comprehensive  view  of 
the  suffering  and  joy,  the  redemptive  and  the  completive  work 
of  Messiah  under  prophetic  imagery.  Both  figures  appear  again 
in  the  Apocalypse ; but  it  is  very  significant  that  they  do  not 
occur  in  the  Lord’s  teaching  in  the  fourth  Gospel  or  in  St.  John’s 
Epistles.” 

(5)  There  are  not  wanting  striking  resemblances  in  thought 
and  style  between  the  discourses  in  John  and  in  the  Synoptists, 
especially  Matthew,  which  are  sufficient  to  refute  the  assertion 
that  the  two  types  of  teaching  are  irreconcilable.1  The  Synop- 
tists were  not  quite  unfamiliar  with  the  other  type  of  teaching. 
They  occasionally  rise  to  the  spiritual  height  of  John  and  record 
briefer  sayings  of  Jesus  which  could  be  inserted  without  a dis- 
cord in  his  Gospel.  Take  the  prayer  of  thanksgiving  and  the 
touching  invitation  to  all  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  in 
Matt.  11 : 25-30.  The  sublime  declaration  recorded  by  Luke 
(10:22)  and  Matthew  (11  : 27):  44  JSTo  one  knoweth  the  Son, 
save  the  Father;  neither  doth  any  know  the  Father,  save  the 
Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  him,”  is 
thoroughly  Christ-like  according  to  John’s  conception,  and  is  the 
basis  of  his  own  declaration  in  the  prologue : 44  No  man  hath  seen 
God  at  any  time ; the  only  begotten  Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom 
of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared  him”  (1  : 18).  Jesus  makes  no 
higher  claim  in  John  than  he  does  in  Matthew  when  he  pro- 
claims : 44  All  authority  hath  been  given  unto  me  in  heaven 
and  on  earth  ” (28  : 19).  In  almost  the  same  words  Jesus  says 
in  John  (17  : 2) : 44  Thou  hast  given  him  power  over  all  flesh.” 

On  the  other  hand,  John  gives  us  not  a few  specimens  of 

1 “ Si  Jesus,”  says  Renan,  ‘ ‘ parlait  comme  le  veut  Matthieu , il  n'apu  parler 
comme  le  veut  Jean” 


C98 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100, 


those  short,  pithy  maxims  of  oriental  wisdom  which  characterize 
the  Synoptic  discourses.1 

> John  1 : 26,  43;  2 : 19  ; 4:  44;  6 : 20,  35,  37;  12:  13,  25,  27  ; 13  : 16,20; 
20  : 19,  23.  See  the  lists  in  Godet,  I.  197  sq.,  and  Westcott,  p lxxxii  sq.  The 
following  are  the  principal  parallel  passages  : 


John  2: 19:  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto 
them,  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I 
will  raise  it  up. 

8 : 18 : He  that  believeth  on  him  is  not  judged : 
he  that  believeth  not  hath  been  judged  already. 

4 : 44 : For  Jesus  himself  testified,  that  a 
prophet  hath  no  honor  in  his  own  country. 

6:8:  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Arise,  take  up 
thy  bed,  and  walk. 

6 : 20 : It  is  I,  be  not  afraid. 

6 : 35 : He  that  cometh  to  me  shall  not  hun- 
ger, and  he  that  believeth  on  me  shall  never 
thirst. 

6 : 37 : All  that  which  the  Father  giveth  me 
shall  come  unto  me ; and  him  that  cometh  unto 
me  I will  in  no  wise  cast  out. 

6 : 46 : Not  that  any  man  hath  seen  the  Fa- 
ther, save  he  which  is  from  God,  he  hath  seen 
the  Father.  Cf . 1 : 1 8 : No  man  hath  seen  God 
at  any  time ; the  only  begotten  Son,  who  is  in 
the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared  him. 

12 : 8 : For  the  poor  ye  have  always  with  you ; 
but  me  ye  have  not  always. 

12 : 25 : He  that  loveth  his  life  loseth  it ; and 
he  that  hateth  his  life  in  this  world  shall  keep 
it  unto  life  eternal. 

12 : 27 : Now  is  my  soul  troubled ; and  what 
shall  I say  ? Father,  save  me  from  this  hour. 
But  for  this  cause  came  I unto  this  hour. 

13:3:  Jesus  knowing  that  the  Father  had 
given  all  things  into  his  hands.  . . . 

13:16:  Verily,  verily  I say  unto  you,  A ser- 
vant is  not  greater  than  his  lord. 

13 : 20 : He  that  receiveth  whomsoever  I send 
receiveth  me ; and  he  that  receiveth  me  receiv- 
eth him  that  sent  me. 

14  : 18:  I will  not  leave  you  desolate  ; I come 
unto  you.  Cf.  v.  23:  We  will  . . . make  our 
abode  with  him. 

15 : 21 : But  all  these  things  will  they  do  unto 
you  for  my  name's  sake. 

17 : 2 : Even  as  thon  gavest  him  authority 
over  all  flesh. 

20  : 23 : Whosesoever  sins  ye  forgive,  they  are 
forgiven  unto  them. 


Matt.  26 : 61 : This  man  said,  I am  able  to 
destroy  the  temple  of  God.  and  to  build  it  in 
three  days.  Cf.  Mark  14  : 58 ; 15 : 29. 

Mark  16 : 16 : He  that  believeth  and  is  bap- 
tized shall  be  saved ; but  he  that  disbelieveth 
shall  be  condemned. 

Matt.  15 : 57 : But  Jesus  said  unto  them,  A 
prophet  is  not  without  honor,  save  in  his  own 
country,  and  in  his  own  house.  Cf.  Mark  6:4; 
Luke  4 : 24. 

Matt.  9:6:  Arise,  and  take  up  thy  bed,  and 
go  unto  thy  house.  Cf . Mark  2:9;  Luke  5 : 24. 

Matt.  14  : 27  : It  is  I,  be  not  afraid.  Cf.  Mark 
6:50. 

Matt.  5:6;  Luke  6 : 21 : Blessed  are  they  that 
hunger  and  thirst  after  righteousness ; for  they 
shall  be  filled. 

Matt.  11 : 28,  29 : Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that 
labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  . . . and  ye  shall 
find  rest  unto  your  souls. 

Matt.  11 : 27 : And  no  one  knoweth  the  Son, 
save  the  Father,  neither  doth  any  know  the 
Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever 
the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  him. 


Matt.  26 : 11 : For  ye  have  the  poor  always 
with  you;  but  me  ye  have  not  always.  Cf. 
Mark  14 : 7. 

Matt.  10 : 39 : He  that  findeth  his  life  shall 
lose  it ; and  he  that  loseth  his  life  for  my  sake 
shall  find  it.  Cf.  16 : 25 ; Mark  8 : 35 ; Luke 
9:24;  17:&3. 

Matt.  26  : 38 : Then  6aith  he  unto  them,  My 
soul  is  exceeding  sorrowful,  even  unto  death. 
Cf.  Mark  14  : 34. 

Matt.  11 : 27 : All  things  have  been  delivered 
unto  me  of  my  Father. 

Matt.  10  : 24 : A disciple  is  not  above  his  mas- 
ter, nor  a servant  above  his  lord.  Cf.  Luke 
6:40. 

Matt.  10  : 40 : He  that  receiveth  you  receiveth 
me,  and  he  that  receiveth  me  receiveth  him 
that  sent  me. 

Matt.  28 : 20 : lam  with  you  alway,  even  unto 
the  end  of  the  world. 

Matt.  10:22:  And  ye  shall  be  hated  of  all 
men  for  my  name’s  sake. 

latt.  28 : 18 : All  authority  hath  been  given 
unto  me  in  heaven  and  on  earth. 

Matt.  18  : 18 : What  things  soever  ye  shall 
loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven. 


§ S3.  John. 


699 


Tiie  Style  of  the  Gospel  of  John. 

The  style  of  the  fourth  Gospel  differs  widely  from  the  eccle- 
siastical writers  of  the  second  century,  and  belongs  to  the  apos- 
tolic age.  It  has  none  of  the  technical  theological  terms  of 
post-apostolic  controversies,  no  allusions  to  the  state  of  the 
church,  its  government  and  worship,  but  moves  in  the  atmos- 
phere of  the  first  Christian  generation ; yet  differs  widely  from 
the  style  of  the  Synoptists  and  is  altogether  unique  in  the  his- 
tory of  secular  and  religious  literature,  a fit  expression  of  the 
genius  of  John : clear  and  deep,  simple  as  a child,  and  mature 
as  a saint,  sad  and  yet  serene,  and  basking  in  the  sunshine  of 
eternal  life  and  love.  The  fourth  Gospel  is  pure  Greek  in 
vocabulary  and  grammar,  but  thoroughly  Hebrew  in  temper  and 
spirit,  even  more  so  than  any  other  book,  and  can  be  almost 
literally  translated  into  Hebrew  without  losing  its  force  or 
beauty.  It  has  the  childlike  simplicity,  the  artlessness,  the 
imaginativeness,  the  directness,  the  circumstantiality,  and  the 
rhythmical  parallelism  which  characterize  the  writings  of  the 
Old  Testament.  The  sentences  are  short  and  weighty,  co-ordi- 
nated, not  subordinated.  The  construction  is  exceedingly  sim- 
ple : no  involved  periods,  no  connecting  links,  no  logical  argu- 
mentation, but  a succession  of  self-evident  truths  declared  as 
from  immediate  intuition.  The  parallelism  of  Hebrew  poetry 
is  very  apparent  in  such  double  sentences  as : “ Peace  I leave 
with  you ; my  peace  I give  unto  you ; ” “A  servant  is  not  greater 
than  his  lord ; neither  one  that  is  sent  greater  than  he  that  sent 
him ; ” “ All  things  were  made  by  him,  and  without  him  was 
not  anything  made  that  hath  been  made.”  Examples  of  anti- 
thetic parallelism  are  also  frequent : “ The  light  shineth  in  the 
darkness,  and  the  darkness  comprehended  it  not;”  “He  was 
in  the  world,  and  the  world  knew  him  not;”  “He  confessed, 
and  denied  not ; ” “I  give  unto  them  eternal  life,  and  they  shall 
never  perish.” 

The  author  has  a limited  vocabulary,  but  loves  emphatic 
repetition,  and  his  very  monotony  is  solemn  and  impressive. 


700 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


He  uses  certain  key- words  of  the  profoundest  import,  as  Word, 
life,  light,  truth,  love,  glory,  testimony,  name,  sign,  work,  to 
know,  to  behold,  to  believe.  These  are  not  abstract  concep- 
tions but  concrete  realities.  He  views  the  world  under  com- 
prehensive contrasts,  as  life  and  death,  light  and  darkness,  truth 
and  falsehood,  love  and  hatred,  God  and  the  devil,  and  (in  the 
first  Epistle)  Christ  and  Antichrist. 

He  avoids  the  optative,  and  all  argumentative  particles,  but 
uses  very  frequently  the  simple  particles  /cal , $e,  ovv,  ha.  His 
most  characteristic  particle  in  the  narrative  portions  is  “ there- 
fore ” (ov v),  which  is  with  him  not  syllogistic  (like  apa  and  its 
compounds),  but  indicative  simply  of  continuation  and  retrospect 
(like  “so”  and  “then”  or  the  German  “ nun ”),  yet  with  the 
idea  that  nothing  happens  without  a cause ; while  the  particle 
“in  order  that”  (ha)  indicates  that  nothing  happens  without  a 
purpose.  He  avoids  the  relative  pronoun  and  prefers  the  con- 
necting “ and  ” with  the  repetition  of  the  noun,  as  “ In  the  be- 
ginning was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the 
Word  was  God.  . . . In  him  was  life,  and  the  life  was  the  light 
^f  men.”  The  “and”  sometimes  takes  the  place  of  “but,”  as 
* The  light  shineth  in  the  darkness,  and  the  darkness  compre- 
hended it  not  ” (1 : 5). 

We  look  in  vain  for  such  important  words  as  church,  gospel, 
repentance  (jieravoia ),  but  the  substance  is  there  in  different 
forms.  He  does  not  even  use  the  noun  “ faith  ” (ttIgtis),  which 
frequently  occurs  in  the  Synoptists  and  in  Paul,  but  he  uses  the 
verb  “to  believe”  ( iruneveiv ) ninety-eight  times,  about  twice  as 
often  as  all  three  Synoptists  together. 

He  applies  the  significant  term  Logos  ( ratio  and  oratio ) to 
Christ  as  the  Revealer  and  the  Interpreter  of  God  (1 : 18),  but 
only  in  the  Prologue,  and  such  figurative  designations  as  “ the 
Light  of  the  world,”  “ the  Bread  of  life,”  “ the  Good  Shepherd,” 
“ the  Vine,”  “ the  Way,”  “the  Truth,”  and  “the  Life.”  He 
alone  uses  the  double  “Verily”  in  the  discourses  of  the  Saviour. 
He  calls  the  Holy  Spirit  the  “ Paraclete  ” or  “ Advocate  ” of  be- 
lievers, who  pleads  their  cause  here  on  earth,  as  Christ  pleads  it 


§ 83.  JOHN. 


701 


on  the  throne  in  heaven.  There  breathes  through  this  book  an 
air  of  calmness  and  serenity,  of  peace  and  repose,  that  seems  to 
come  from  the  eternal  mansions  of  heaven.1 2 

Is  such  a style  compatible  with  the  hypothesis  of  a post-  and 
pseudo-apostolic  fiction  ? We  have  a large  number  of  fictitious 
Gospels,  but  they  differ  as  much  from  the  fourth  canonical  Gos- 
pel as  midnight  darkness  from  noonday  brightness. 


Authorship. 

For  nearly  eighteen  centuries  the  Christian  church  of  all  de- 
nominations has  enjoyed  the  fourth  Gospel  without  a shadow  of 
doubt  that  it  was  the  work  of  John  the  Apostle.  But  in  the 
nineteenth  century  the  citadel  was  assailed  with  increasing  force, 
and  the  conflict  between  the  besiegers  and  defenders  is  still 
raging  among  scholars  of  the  highest  ability.  It  is  a question 
of  life  and  death  between  constructive  and  destructive  criticism. 
The  vindication  of  the  fourth  Gospel  as  a genuine  product  of 
John,  the  beloved  disciple,  is  the  death-blow  of  the  mythical 
and  legendary  reconstruction  and  destruction  of  the  life  of 
Christ  and  the  apostolic  history.  The  ultimate  result  cannot  be 
doubtful.  The  opponents  have  been  forced  gradually  to  retreat 
from  the  year  170  to  the  very  beginning  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, as  the  time  when  the  fourth  Gospel  was  already  known 
and  used  in  the  church,  that  is  to  the  lifetime  of  many  pupils 
and  friends  of  John  and  other  eye-witnesses  of  the  life  of 
Christ.3 

I.  The  External  Proof  of  the  Johannean  authorship  is  as 
strong,  yea  stronger  than  that  of  the  genuineness  of  any  classical 
writer  of  antiquity,  and  goes  up  to  the  very  beginning  of  the 

1 For  further  particulars  of  John’s  style  see  my  Companion  to  the  Study  of 
the  Greek  Test.,  pp.  66-75,  where  the  opinions  of  Renan,  Ewald,  Luthardt, 
Keim,  Godet,  Westcott,  Hase,  and  Weiss  are  given  on  the  subject. 

2 See  the  literary  notices  on  p.  405  sqq.  To  the  able  vindications  of  the  genu- 
ineness of  John  there  mentioned  must  now  be  added  the  masterly  discussion  of 

Dr.  Weiss  in  his  Leben  Jesu  (vol.  I.,  1882,  pp.  84-124),  which  has  just  come  to 
hand. 


702 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


second  century,  within  hailing  distance  of  the  living  John.  It 
includes  catholic  writers,  heretics,  and  heathen  enemies.  There 
is  but  one  dissenting  voice,  hardly  audible,  that  of  the  insignifi- 
cant sect  of  the  Alogi  who  opposed  the  Johannean  doctrine  of 
the  Logos  (hence  their  name,  with  the  double  meaning  of  unrea- 
sonable, and  anti-Logos  heretics)  and  absurdly  ascribed  both  the 
Gospel  of  John  and  the  Apocalypse  to  his  enemy,  the  Gnostic 
Cerinthus.1  Let  us  briefly  sum  up  the  chief  testimonies. 

1.  Catholic  testimonies.  We  begin  at  the  fourth  century  and 
gradually  rise  up  to  the  age  of  John.  All  the  ancient  Greek 
manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,  including  the  Sinaitic  and 
the  Vatican,  which  date  from  the  age  of  Constantine  and  are 
based  upon  older  copies  of  the  second  century,  and  all  the 
ancient  versions,  including  the  Syriac  and  old  Latin  from  the 
third  and  second  centuries,  contain  without  exception  the  Gos- 
pel of  John,  though  the  Peshito  omits  his  second  and  third 
Epistles  and  the  Apocalypse.  These  manuscripts  and  versions 
represent  the  universal  voice  of  the  churches. 

Then  we  have  the  admitted  individual  testimonies  of  all  the 
Greek  and  Latin  fathers  up  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century, 
without  a dissenting  voice  or  doubt : Jerome  (d.  419)  and  Euse- 
bius (d.  340),  who  had  the  whole  ante-Nicene  literature  before 
them ; Origen  in  Egypt  (d.  254),  the  greatest  scholar  of  his  age 
and  a commentator  on  John;  Tertullian  of  North  Africa  (about 
200),  a Catholic  in  doctrine,  a Montanist  in  discipline,  and  a 
zealous  advocate  of  the  dispensation  of  the  Paraclete  announced 
by  John ; Clement  of  Alexandria  (about  190),  a cultivated  phi- 
losopher who  had  travelled  in  Greece,  Italy,  Syria,  and  Palestine, 
seeking  religious  instruction  everywhere ; Irenseus,  a native  of 
Asia  Minor  and  from  178  bishop  of  Lyons,  a pupil  of  Polycarp 
and  a grand-pupil  of  John  himself,  who  derived  his  chief  ammu- 
nition against  the  Gnostic  heresy  from  the  fourth  Gospel,  and 
represents  the  four  canonical  Gospels — no  more  and  no  less — as 
universally  accepted  by  the  churches  of  his  time ; Theophilus 
of  Antioch  (180),  who  expressly  quotes  from  the  fourth  Gospel 
1 Recently  renewed  in  part  by  Renan  (1879).  See  below. 


§ 83.  JOHN. 


703 


under  the  name  of  John  ; 1 the  Muratorian  Canon  (170),  which 
reports  the  occasion  of  the  composition  of  John’s  Gospel  by 
urgent  request  of  his  friends  and  disciples ; Tatian  of  Syria 
(155-170),  who  in  his  “Address  to  the  Greeks”  repeatedly 
quotes  the  fourth  Gospel,  though  without  naming  the  author, 
and  who  began  his  “ Diatessaron  ” — once  widely  spread  in  the 
church  notwithstanding  the  somewhat  Gnostic  leanings  of  the 
author,  and  commented  on  by  Ephraem  of  Syria — with  the  pro- 
logue of  John.3  From  him  we  have  but  one  step  to  his  teacher, 
Justin  Martyr,  a native  of  Palestine  (103-166),  and  a bold  and 
noble-minded  defender  of  the  faith  in  the  reigns  of  Hadrian 
and  the  Antonines.  In  his  two  Apologies  and  his  Dialogue 
with  Tryplio  the  Jew,  he  often  quotes  freely  from  the  four 
Gospels  under  the  name  of  Apostolic  “ Memoirs  ” or  “ Memora- 
bilia of  the  Apostles,”  which  were  read  at  his  time  in  public 
worship.8  He  made  most  use  of  Matthew,  but  once  at  least  he 
quotes  a passage  on  regeneration  * from  Christ’s  dialogue  with 


1 His  quotation  is  considered  the  earliest  by  name  ; but  Irenaeus,  who  wrote 
between  177  and  192,  represents  an  older  tradition,  and  proves  to  his  satisfac- 
tion that  there  must  be  just  four  Gospels  to  answer  the  four  cherubim  in 
Ezekiel’s  vision.  Adv.  Hcer .,  III.  1,  1 ; 11,  8;  V.  36,  2. 

2 The  Commentary  of  Ephraem  Syrus  on  the  Diatessaron  (375)  has  recently 
been  discovered  and  published  from  an  Armenian  translation,  at  Venice,  in 
1876.  Comp.  Zahn,  Tatum's  Diatessaron,  Erlangen,  1881,  and  Harnack,  Die 
Ueberlieferung  der  griechischen  Apologeten  des  zioei  ten  Jahrh.,  Leipzig,  1882, 
pp.  213  sqq. 

3 The  use  of  the  Gospel  of  John  by  Justin  Martyr  was  doubted  by  Baur  and 
most  of  his  followers,  but  is  admitted  by  Hilgenfeld  and  Keim.  It  was  agaiu 
denied  by  the  anonymous  author  of  “Supernatural  Religion,”  and  by  Edwin 
A.  Abbott  (in  the  art.  Gospels , “ Enc.  Brit.,”  vol.  X.  821),  and  again  conclu- 
sively proven  by  Sanday  in  England,  and  Ezra  Abbot  in  America. 

4 The  quotation  is  not  literal  but  from  memory,  like  most  of  his  quotations  : 


Justin,  Apol.,  I.  61:  “For  Christ  also  said. 
Except  ye  be  bom  again  [avayevvTjflijTe,  comp. 
1 Pet.  3 : 23j.  ye  shall  in  no  wise  enter  [ei«reX%re, 
but  comp,  the  same  word  in  John  3 : 5 and  7] 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  [the  phrase  of 
Matthew].  Now  that  it  is  impossible  for  those 
who  have  once  been  born  to  re-enter  the  wombs 
of  those  that  bare  them  is  manifest  to  all.” 


John  3:3,  4:  “Jesus  answered  and  said  to 
him  [Nicodemus],  Verily,  verily,  I say  unto 
thee,  Except  a man  be  born  anew  [or  from 
above , yevvij 0j)  avwflev] , he  cannot  see  [i$eZv, 
ver.  6,  enter  into ] the  kingdom  of  God.  Nico- 
demus saith  unto  him,  How  can  a man  be  born 
when  he  is  old?  can  he  enter  a second  time 
into  his  mother’s  womb  and  be  born  ? ” 


Much  account  has  been  made  by  the  Tubingen  critics  of  the  slight  differ- 
ences in  the  quotation  (iLvaytwn^qre  for  yevvri&ij  &vu>&e v,  ciVeA&fiv  for  ISay  and 
fkuriXtla  rwv  ovpavwy  for  /3<ur.  rov  &cov)  to  disprove  the  connection,  or,  as  this  is 


704 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Nicodernus  which  is  recorded  only  by  John.  Several  other  allu- 
sions of  Justin  to  John  are  unmistakable,  and  his  whole  doctrine 
of  the  pre-existent  Logos  who  sowed  precious  seeds  of  truth 
among  Jews  and  Gentiles  before  his  incarnation,  is  unquestion- 
ably derived  from  John.  To  reverse  the  case  is  to  derive  the 
sunlight  from  the  moon,  or  the  fountain  from  one  of  its  streams. 

But  we  can  go  still  farther  back.  The  scanty  writings  of  the 
Apostolic  Fathers,  so  called,  have  very  few  allusions  to  the  New 
Testament,  and  breathe  the  atmosphere  of  the  primitive  oral  tra- 
dition. The  author  of  the  “Didache”  was  well  acquainted  with 
Matthew.  The  first  Epistle  of  Clement  has  strong  affinity  with 
Paul.  The  shorter  Epistles  of  Ignatius  show  the  influence  of 
John’s  Christology.1  Polycarp  (d.  a.d.  155  in  extreme  old  age),  a 
personal  pupil  of  John,  used  the  First  Epistle  of  John,  and  thus 
furnishes  an  indirect  testimony  to  the  Gospel,  since  both  these 
books  must  stand  or  fall  together.2  The  same  is  true  of  Papias 
(died  about  150),  who  studied  with  Poly  carp,  and  probably  was 
likewise  a hearer  of  John.  He  “used  testimonies  from  the 

impossible,  to  prove  the  dependence  of  John  on  Justin!  But  Dr.  Abbot,  a 
most  accurate  and  conscientious  scholar,  who  moreover  as  a Unitarian  cannot 
be  charged  with  an  orthodox  bias,  has  produced  many  parallel  cases  of  free 
quotations  of  the  same  passage  not  only  from  patristic  writers,  but  even  from 
modem  divines,  including  no  less  than  nine  quotations  of  the  passage  by 
Jeremy  Taylor,  only  two  of  which  are  alike.  I think  he  has  conclusively 
proven  his  case  for  every  reasonable  mind.  See  his  invaluable  monograph  on 
The  Authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel , pp.  28  sqq.  and  91  sqq.  Comp,  also 
Weiss,  Lehen  Jesu , I.  83,  who  sees  in  Justin  Martyr  not  only  “ an  unquestion- 
able allusion  to  the  Nicodernus  story  of  the  fourth  Gospel,”  but  other  isolated 
reminiscences. 

1 Comp,  such  expressions  as  “I  desire  bread  of  God,  which  is  the  flesh  of 
Jesus  Christ  . . . and  I desire  as  drink  His  blood,  which  is  love  imperishable,” 
Ad  Rom.,  ch.  7,  with  John  6 : 47  sqq. ; “living  water,”  Ad  Rom.,  7,  with  John 
4 : 10, 11 ; “being  Himself  the  Door  of  the  Father,”  Ad  Philad.,  9,  with  John 
10  :9;  [the  Spirit]  “knows  whence  it  cometh  and  whither  it  goeth,”  Ad 
Philad. , 7,  with  John  3:8.  I quoted  from  the  text  of  Zahn.  See  the  able  art. 
of  Lightfoot  in  “ Contemp.  Rev.”  for  February,  1875,  and  hisS.  Ignatius , 1885. 

2 Polyc. , Ad  Phil. , ch.  7 : “ Every  one  that  doth  not  confess  that  Jesus 
Christ  hath  come  in  the  flesh  is  Antichrist ; and  whosoever  doth  not  confess 
the  mystery  of  the  cross  is  of  the  devil.”  Comp.  1 John  4 : 3.  On  the  testi- 
mony of  Polycarp  see  Lightfoot  in  the  “Contemp.  Rev.”  for  May,  1875. 
Westcott,  p.  xxx,  says:  “A  testimony  to  one”  (the  Gospel  or  the  first  Ep.) 
“is  necessarily  by  inference  a testimony  to  the  other.” 


§ 83.  JOHN. 


705 


former  Epistle  of  John.” 1 In  enumerating  the  apostles  whose 
living  words  he  collected  in  his  youth,  he  places  John  out  of  his 
regular  order  of  precedence,  along  with  Matthew,  his  fellow- 
Evangelist,  and  “ Andrew,  Peter,  and  Philip  ” in  the  same  order 
as  John  (1  : 40-43) ; from  which  it  has  also  been  inferred  that 
he  knew  the  fourth  Gospel.  There  is  some  reason  to  suppose 
that  the  disputed  section  on  the  woman  taken  in  adultery  was 
recorded  by  him  in  illustration  of  John  8 : 15  ; for,  according  to 
Eusebius,  he  mentioned  a similar  story  in  his  lost  work.2  These 
facts  combined,  make  it  at  least  extremely  probable  that  Papias 
was  familiar  with  John.3  The  joint  testimony  of  Poly  carp  and 
Papias  represents  the  school  of  John  in  the  very  field  of  his 
later  labors,  and  the  succession  was  continued  through  Poly- 
crates at  Ephesus,  through  Melito  at  Sardis,  through  Claudius 
Apollinaris  at  Hieropolis,  and  Potliinus  and  Irenaeus  in  Southern 
Gaul.  It  is  simply  incredible  that  a spurious  Gospel  should 
have  been  smuggled  into  the  churches  under  the  name  of  their 
revered  spiritual  father  and  grandfather. 

Finally,  the  concluding  verse  of  the  appendix,  ch.  21 : 24,  is  a 
still  older  testimony  of  a number  of  personal  friends  and  pupils 

1 According  to  Eusebius,  III.  39.  See  Lightfoot  in  the  “ Contemp.  Rev.” 
for  August  and  October,  1875. 

2 Eusebius,  H.  E.,  III.  39,  closes  his  account  of  Papias  with  the  notice: 
“ He  has  likewise  set  forth  another  narrative  [in  his  Exposition  of  the  Lord's 
Oracles ] concerning  a woman  who  was  maliciously  accused  before  the  Lord 
touching  many  sins,  which  is  contained  in  the  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews.” 

3 In  a tradition  too  late  (ninth  century)  to  be  of  any  critical  weight,  Papias 
is  even  made  the  amanuensis  of  John  in  the  preparation  of  his  Gospel.  A 
Vatican  Codex  (of  Queen  Christina  of  Sweden)  has  this  marginal  gloss  : 
‘ ‘ Evangelium  Johannis  manifestation  et  datum  est  ecclesiis  ab  Johanne  adliuc  in 
corpore  constituto ; sicut  Papias , nomine  Hieropolitanus  discipulus  Johannis 
earns , in  exotericis  [exegetievs],  id  est  in  extremis , quinque  libiis  retulit  [refer- 
ring no  doubt  to  the  five  books  of  A oyiav  K vpiauuv  4^rjyf](reis].  Descripsit  vero 
evangelium  dictante  Johanne  recte.  ” This  was  hailed  as  a direct  testimony  of 
Papias  for  John  by  Prof.  Aberle  (Rom.  Cath.)  in  the  **  Tubing.  Quartalschrift,” 

1864,  No.  1,  but  set  aside  by  Hilgenfeld  versus  Aberle,  in  his  “ Zeitschrift,” 

1865,  pp.  77  sqq.,  and  Hase,  l.c  , p.  35.  If  Eusebius  had  found  this  notice  in 
the  work  of  Papias,  he  would  have  probably  mentioned  it  in  connection  with 
his  testimonies  on  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Mark.  But  see  Westcott, 
Canon , 5th  ed.,  p.  77,  note  1. 


706 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


of  John,  perhaps  the  very  persons  who,  according  to  ancient 
tradition,  urged  him  to  write  the  Gospel.  The  book  probably 
closed  with  the  sentence : “ This  is  the  disciple  who  beareth 
witness  of  these  things,  and  wrote  these  things.”  To  this  the 
elders  add  their  attestation  in  the  plural : “ And  we  know  that 
his  witness  is  true.”  A literary  fiction  would  not  have  been 
benefited  by  an  anonymous  postscript.  The  words  as  they  stand 
are  either  a false  testimony  of  the  pseudo-John,  or  the  true 
testimony  of  the  friends  of  the  real  John  who  first  received  his 
book  and  published  it  before  or  after  his  death. 

The  voice  of  the  whole  Catholic  church,  so  far  as  it  is  heard 
on  the  subject  at  all,  is  in  favor  of  the  authorship  of  John. 
There  is  not  a shadow  of  proof  to  the  contrary  opinion  except 
one,  and  that  is  purely  negative  and  inconclusive.  Baur  to  the 
very  last  laid  the  greatest  stress  on  the  entangled  paschal  contro- 
versy of  the  second  century  as  a proof  that  J ohn  could  not  have 
written  the  fourth  Gospel  because  he  was  quoted  as  an  authority 
for  the  celebration  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  on  the  14th  of  Nisan ; 
while  the  fourth  Gospel,  in  flat  contradiction  to  the  Synop- 
tists,  puts  the  crucifixion  on  that  day  (instead  of  the  15tli),  and 
represents  Christ  as  the  true  paschal  lamb  slain  at  the  very  time 
when  the  typical  Jewish  passover  was  slain.  But,  in  the  first 
place,  some  of  the  ablest  scholars  know  how  to  reconcile  John 
with  the  Synoptic  date  of  the  crucifixion  on  the  15th  of  Nisan ; 
and,  secondly,  there  is  no  evidence  at  all  that  the  apostle  John 
celebrated  Easter  with  the  Quartodecimans  on  the  14th  of  Nisan 
in  commemoration  of  the  day  of  the  Lord’s  Supper.  The  con- 
troversy was  between  conforming  the  celebration  of  the  Christian 
Passover  to  the  day  of  the  month , that  is  to  Jewish  chronology, 
or  to  the  day  of  the  week  on  which  Christ  died.  The  former 
would  have  made  Easter,  more  conveniently,  a fixed  festival  like 
the  Jewish  Passover,  the  latter  or  Homan  practice  made  it  a mova- 
ble feast,  and  this  practice  triumphed  at  the  Council  of  Nicaea.' 

1 See  Schurer’s  Latin  dissertation  De  controversies  paschalibus , etc.,  Leipz., 

1869,  and  the  German  translation  in  the  “ Zeitschrift  fur  hist.  Theol.”  for 

1870,  yp.  183-284. 


§ 83.  joiin. 


707 


2.  Ileretical  testimonies.  They  are  all  the  more  important 
in  view  of  their  dissent  from  Catholic  doctrine.  It  is  remarkable 
that  the  heretics  seem  to  have  used  and  commented  on  the 
fourth  Gospel  even  before  the  Catholic  writers.  The  Clementine 
Homilies,  besides  several  allusions,  very  clearly  quote  from  the 
story  of  the  man  born  blind,  John  9 : 2,  3.1 2  The  Gnostics  of 
the  second  century,  especially  the  Valentinians  and  Basilidians, 
made  abundant  use  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  which  alternately 
offended  them  by  its  historical  realism,  and  attracted  them  by 
its  idealism  and  mysticism.  Ileracleon,  a pupil  of  Valentinus, 
wrote  a commentary  on  it,  of  which  Origen  has  preserved  large 
extracts;  Valentinus  himself  (according  to  Tertullian)  tried 
either  to  explain  it  away,  or  he  put  his  own  meaning  into  it. 
Basilides,  who  flourished  about  a.d.  125,  quoted  from  the  Gos- 
pel of  John  such  passages  as  the  “ true  light,  which  enligliteneth 
every  man,  was  coming  into  the  world  ” (1 : 9),  and  “ my  hour 
is  not  yet  come  ” (2  : 4).a 

These  heretical  testimonies  are  almost  decisive  by  themselves. 
The  Gnostics  would  rather  have  rejected  the  fourth  Gospel 
altogether,  as  Marcion  actually  did,  from  doctrinal  objection. 
They  certainly  would  not  have  received  it  from  the  Catholic 
church,  as  little  as  the  church  would  have  received  it  from  the 
Gnostics.  The  concurrent  reception  of  the  Gospel  by  both  at 
so  early  a date  is  conclusive  evidence  of  its  genuineness.  “ The 
Gnostics  of  that  date,”  says  Dr.  Abbot,3  “ received  it  because 
they  could  not  help  it.  They  would  not  have  admitted  the 
authority  of  a book  which  could  be  reconciled  with  their  doc- 
trines only  by  the  most  forced  interpretation,  if  they  could  have 
destroyed  its  authority  by  denying  its  genuineness.  Its  genuine- 
ness could  then  be  easily  ascertained.  Ephesus  was  one  of  the 

1 In  the  last  portion  of  the  book,  discovered  and  first  published  by  Dressel 
(XIX.  22).  This  discovery  has  induced  Hilgenfeld  to  retract  his  former  denial 
of  the  quotations  in  the  earlier  books,  Einleit.  in  d.  N.  T. , p.  43  sq.,  note. 

2 See  the  Philosophumena  of  Hippolytus,  VII.  22,  27 ; Hofstede  de  Groot, 
Basilides,  trans.  from  the  Dutch,  Leipz. , 1868 ; Hort,  Basilides , in  Smith  and 
Wace,  I.  271 ; Abbot,  Lc.y  80  sqq. 

3 Ac.,  p.  89. 


708 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


principal  cities  of  the  Eastern  world,  the  centre  of  extensive 
commerce,  the  metropolis  of  Asia  Minor.  Hundreds,  if  not 
thousands,  of  people  were  living  who  had  known  the  apostle 
John.  The  question  whether  he,  the  beloved  disciple,  had  com- 
mitted to  writing  his  recollections  of  his  Master’s  life  and  teach- 
ing, was  one  of  the  greatest  interest.  The  fact  of  the  reception 
of  the  fourth  Gospel  as  his  work  at  so  early  a date,  by  parties  so 
violently  opposed  to  each  other,  proves  that  the  evidence  of  its 
genuineness  was  decisive.  This  argument  is  further  confirmed 
by  the  use  of  the  Gospel  by  the  opposing  parties  in  the  later 
Montanistic  controversy,  and  in  the  disputes  about  the  time  of 
celebrating  Easter.” 

3.  Heathen  testimony.  Celsus,  in  his  book  against  Chris- 
tianity, which  was  written  about  a.d.  178  (according  to  Keim, 
who  reconstructed  it  from  the  fragments  preserved  in  the  re- 
futation of  Origen),  derives  his  matter  for  attack  from  the  four 
Gospels,  though  he  does  not  name  their  authors,  and  he  refers 
to  several  details  which  are  peculiar  to  John,  as,  among  others, 
the  blood  which  flowed  from  the  body  of  Jesus  at  his  crucifixion 
(John  19  : 34),  and  the  fact  that  Christ  “ after  his  death  arose 
and  showed  the  marks  of  his  punishment,  and  how  his  hands 
had  been  pierced  ” (20  : 25,  27). 1 

The  radical  assertion  of  Baur  that  no  distinct  trace  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  can  be  found  before  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  cen- 
tury has  utterly  broken  down,  and  his  own  best  pupils  have 
been  forced  to  make  one  concession  after  another  as  the  succes- 
sive discoveries  of  the  many  Gnostic  quotations  in  the  Philoso- 
phumena,  the  last  book  of  the  pseudo-Clementine  Homilies,  the 
Syrian  Commentary  on  Tatian’s  Diatessaron,  revealed  the  stub- 
born fact  of  the  use  and  abuse  of  the  Gospel  before  the  middle 
and  up  to  the  very  beginning  of  the  second  century,  that  is,  to  a 
time  when  it  was  simply  impossible  to  mistake  a pseudo-apos- 
tolic fiction  for  a genuine  production  of  the  patriarch  of  the 
apostolic  age. 

1 See  Keim,  Celsus ’ Wahres  Wort,  1873,  pp.  223-230,  besides  the  older  investi- 
gations of  Lardner,  Norton,  Tholuck,  and  the  recent  one  of  Dr.  Abbot,  l.c. , 58  sq. 


§ 83.  JOHN. 


709 


II.  Internal  Evidence.  This  is  even  still  stronger,  and 
leaves  at  last  no  alternative  but  truth  or  fraud. 

1.  To  begin  with  the  style  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  we  have 
already  seen  that  it  is  altogether  unique  and  without  a parallel 
in  post-apostolic  literature,  betraying  a Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews, 
impregnated  with  the  genius  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  mode  of 
thought  and  expression,  in  imagery  and  symbolism,  in  the  sym- 
metrical structure  of  sentences,  in  the  simplicity  and  circum- 
stantiality of  narration ; yet  familiar  with  pure  Greek,  from  long 
residence  among  Greeks.  This  is  just  what  we  should  expect 
from  John  at  Ephesus.  Though  not  a rabbinical  scholar,  like 
Paul,  he  was  acquainted  with  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  and  not 
dependent  on  the  Septuagint.  He  has  in  all  fourteen  quota- 
tions from  the  Old  Testament.1  Four  of  these  agree  with  the 
Hebrew  and  the  Septuagint;  three  agree  with  the  Hebrew 
against  the  Septuagint  (6  : 45 ; 13  : 18 ; 19  : 37),  the  rest  are 
neutral,  either  agreeing  with  both  or  differing  from  both,  or 
being  free  adaptations  rather  than  citations  ; but  none  of  them 
agrees  with  the  Septuagint  against  the  Hebrew.2 

Among  the  post-apostolic  writers  there  is  no  converted  Jew, 
unless  it  be  Hegesippus ; none  who  could  read  the  Hebrew  and 
write  Hebraistic  Greek.  After  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
the  church  finally  separated  from  the  synagogue  and  both  as- 
sumed an  attitude  of  uncompromising  hostility. 

2.  The  author  was  a Jew  of  Palestine.  He  gives,  incidentally 
and  without  effort,  unmistakable  evidence  of  minute  familiarity 
with  the  Holy  Land  and  its  inhabitants  before  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  He  is  at  home  in  the  localities  of  the  holy  city  and 
the  neighborhood.  He  describes  Bethesda  as  “ a pool  by  the 
sheep  gate,  having  five  porches  ” (5  : 2),  Siloam  as  “ a pool  which 
is  by  interpretation  Sent  ” (9 : 7),  Solomon’s  porch  as  being 
“ in  the  Temple  ” (10  : 23),  the  brook  Ivedron  “ where  was  a gar- 
den” (18  : 1) ; he  knows  the  location  of  the  praetorium  (18  : 28), 

1 John  1 : 23 ; 2:17;  6:31,45;  7:38;  10:34;  12:14,38,40;  13:18; 
15  :25;  19  : 24,  36.  37. 

2 See  the  careful  analysis  of  the  passages  by  Westcott,  Intr. , pp.  xiii  sqq. 


710 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


tlie  meaning  of  Gabbatha  (19  : 13),  and  Golgotha  (19  : 17),  the 
distance  of  Bethany  from  Jerusalem  “about  fifteen  furlongs 
off  ” (11 : 18),  and  he  distinguishes  it  from  Bethany  beyond 
Jordan  (1 : 28).  He  gives  the  date  when  the  Herodian  recon- 
struction of  the  temple  began  (2  : 19).  He  is  equally  familiar 
with  other  parts  of  Palestine  and  makes  no  mistakes  such  as  are 
so  often  made  by  foreigners.  He  locates  Cana  in  Galilee  (2:1; 
4:26;  21 : 2),  to  distinguish  it  from  another  Cana ; Aenon 
“ near  to  Salim,”  where  there  are  “ many  waters  ” (3  : 23) ; 
Sychar  in  Samaria  near  “ Jacob’s  well,”  and  in  view  of  Mount 
Gerizim  (4  : 5).  He  knows  the  extent  of  the  Lake  of  Tiberias 
(6 : 19) ; he  describes  Bethsaida  as  “ the  city  of  Andrew  and 
Peter  ” (1 : 44),  as  distinct  from  Bethsaida  Julias  on  the  eastern 
bank  of  the  Jordan;  he  represents  Nazareth  as  a place  of  pro- 
verbial insignificance  (1 : 46). 

He  is  well  acquainted  with  the  confused  politico-ecclesiastical 
Messianic  ideas  and  expectations  of  the  Jews  (1 : 19-28,  45-49 ; 
4 : 25 ; 6 : 14,  15 ; 7:26;  12  : 34,  and  other  passages) ; with  the 
hostility  between  Jews  and  Samaritans  (4  : 9,  20,  22  ; 8 : 48) ; 
with  Jewish  usages  and  observances,  as  baptism  (1 : 25 ; 3 : 22, 
23 ; 4 : 2),  purification  (2:6;  3 : 25,  etc.),  ceremonial  pollution 
(18 : 28),  feasts  (2:13,  23 ; 5:1;  7 : 37,  etc.),  circumcision, 
and  the  Sabbath  (7  : 22,  23).  He  is  also  acquainted  with 
the  marriage  and  burial  rites  (2  : 1-10 ; 11 : 17-44),  with  the 
character  of  the  Pharisees  and  their  influence  in  the  Sanhedrin, 
the  relationship  between  Annas  and  Caiaphas.  The  objection 
of  Bretschneider  that  he  represents  the  office  of  the  high-priest 
as  an  annual  office  arose  from  a misunderstanding  of  the  phrase 
“that  year”  (11:49,  51;  18:13),  by  which  he  means  that 
memorable  year  in  which  Christ  died  for  the  sins  of  the  people. 

3.  The  author  was  an  eye-vntness  of  most  of  the  events  nar- 
rated. This  appears  from  his  life-like  familiarity  with  the  act- 
ing persons,  the  Baptist,  Peter,  Andrew,  Philip,  Nathanael, 
Thomas,  Judas  Iscariot,  Pilate,  Caiaphas,  Annas,  Nicodemus, 
Martha  and  Mary,  Mary  Magdalene,  the  woman  of  Samaria, 
the  man  born  blind ; and  from  the  minute  traits  and  vivid  de- 


§ 83.  JOHN. 


711 


tails  which  betray  autopticity.  lie  incidentally  notices  what 
the  Synoptists  omit,  that  the  traitor  was  “ the  son  of  Simon  ” 
(6:71;  12  : 4 ; 13  : 2,  26),  that  Thomas  was  called  “ Didymus  ” 
(11:16;  20  : 24 ; 21:2);  while,  on  the  other  hand,  he  calls  the 
Baptist  simply  “ John  ” (lie  himself  being  the  other  John), 
without  adding  to  it  the  distinctive  title  as  the  Synoptists  do 
more  than  a dozen  times  to  distinguish  him  from  the  son  of 
Zebedee.1 *  He  indicates  the  days  and  hours  of  certain  events,3 
and  the  exact  or  approximate  number  of  persons  and  objects 
mentioned.3  He  was  privy  to  the  thoughts  of  the  disciples  on 
certain  occasions,  their  ignorance  and  misunderstanding  of  the 
words  of  the  Master,4 5  and  even  to  the  motives  and  feelings  of 
the  Lord.6 

No  literary  artist  could  have  invented  the  conversation  of 
Christ  with  Nicodemus  on  the  mystery  of  spiritual  regeneration 
(ch.  3),  or  the  conversation  with  the  woman  of  Samaria  (cli.  4), 
or  the  characteristic  details  of  the  catechization  of  the  man  born 
blind,  which  brings  out  so  naturally  the  proud  and  heartless 
bigotry  of  the  Jewish  hierarchy  and  the  rough,  outspoken  hon- 
esty and  common  sense  of  the  blind  man  and  his  parents 
(9  : 13-34).  The  scene  at  Jacob’s  well,  described  in  the  fourth 
chapter,  presents  a most  graphic,  and  yet  unartificial  picture  of 
nature  and  human  life  as  it  still  remains,  though  in  decay,  at 
the  foot  of  Gerizim  and  Ebal : there  is  the  well  of  Jacob  in  a 

1 “ Johannes  als  der  Erzahlende,  in  seinem  Selbstbewusstsein,  bedarf  fur  den 
anderen  Johannes  des  Beinamens  nicht,  ihm  liegt  die  Verwechslung  gam  fern" 
Hase,  Oeschichte  Jesu,  p.  48.  The  former  belief  of  the  venerable  historian  of 
Jena  in  the  full  Johannean  authorship  of  the  fourth  Gospel  was  unfortunately 
shaken  in  his  conflict  with  the  Tubingen  giant,  but  he  declares  the  objections 
of  Baur  after  all  inconclusive,  and  seeks  an  escape  from  the  dilemma  by  the 
untenable  compromise  that  the  oral  teaching  of  John  a few  years  after  his 
death  was  committed  to  writing  and  somewhat  mystified  by  an  able  pupil. 
“ Die  Botschaft  hort  er  wohl,  allein  ihm  fehlt  der  Qlaube." 

* 1 : 29,  35,  39,  43;  2:1;  4 : 6,  40,  43,  52  ; 6 : 22;  7 : 14,  37  ; 11  ' 6,  17, 
39  ; 12  : 1,  12  ; 13  : 30  ; 18  : 28  ; 19  : 31  ; 20  : 1,  19,  26  ; 21  : 4. 

3 1 : 35  ; 2 : 6 ; 4 : 18;  6 : 9,  10.  19;  19  : 23,  39  ; 21  : 8,  11. 

4 2 : 17,  22  ; 4 : 27  ; 6 : 60  ; 12  : 16  ; 13  : 22,  28  ; 20  : 9 ; 21  : 12. 

5 2 : 24,  25  ; 4:1-3;  5:6;  6 : 6,  15;  7:1;  11  : 33,  38  ; 13  : 1,  3,  11,  21  ; 

16  : 19;  18  : 4;  19  : 28. 


712 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


fertile,  well- watered  valley,  there  the  Samaritan  sanctuary  on 
the  top  of  Mount  Gerizim,  there  the  waving  grain-fields  ripen- 
ing for  the  harvest ; we  are  confronted  with  the  historic  antag- 
onism of  Jews  and  Samaritans  which  survives  in  the  Nablus 
of  to-day ; there  we  see  the  genuine  humanity  of  Jesus,  as  he 
sat  down  “ wearied  with  his  journey,”  though  not  weary  of  his 
work,  his  elevation  above  the  rabbinical  prejudice  of  conversing 
with  a woman,  his  superhuman  knowledge  and  dignity ; there 
is  the  curiosity  and  quick-wittedness  of  the  Samaritan  Magda- 
lene ; and  how  natural  is  the  transition  from  the  water  of  Jacob’s 
well  to  the  water  of  life,  and  from  the  hot  dispute  of  the  place 
of  worship  to  the  highest  conception  of  God  as  an  omnipresent 
spirit,  and  his  true  worship  in  spirit  and  in  truth.1 2 

4.  The  writer  represents  himself  expressly  as  an  eye-witness 
of  the  life  of  Christ.  He  differs  from  the  Synoptists,  who  never 
use  the  first  person  nor  mix  their  subjective  feelings  with  the 
narrative.  “ We  beheld  his  glory,”  he  says,  in  the  name  of  all 
the  apostles  and  primitive  disciples,  in  stating  the  general  im- 
pression made  upon  them  by  the  incarnate  Logos  dwelling.3 
And  in  the  parallel  passage  of  the  first  Epistle,  which  is  an  in- 
separable companion  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  he  asserts  with  solemn 
emphasis  his  personal  knowledge  of  the  incarnate  Word  of  life 
whom  he  heard  with  his  ears  and  saw  with  his  eyes  and  handled 


1 “ How  often  has  this  fourth  chapter  been  read  since  by  Christian  pilgrims 
on  the  very  spot  where  the  Saviour  rested,  with  the  irresistible  impression 
that  every  word  is  true  and  adapted  to  the  time  and  place,  yet  applicable  to 
all  times  and  places.  Jacob’s  well  is  now  in  ruins  and  no  more  used,  but  the 
living  spring  of  water  which  the  Saviour  first  opened  there  to  a poor,  sinful, 
yet  penitent  woman  is  as  deep  and  fresh  as  ever,  and  will  quench  the  thirst  of 
souls  to  the  end  of  time.”  So  I wrote  in  1871  for  the  English  edition  of 
Lange’s  Com.  on  John , p.  151.  Six  years  afterward  I fully  realized  my 
anticipations,  when  with  a company  of  friends  I sat  down  on  Jacob’s  well  and 
read  the  fourth  chapter  of  John  as  I never  read  it  before.  Palestine,  even  in 
“the  imploring  beauty  of  decay,”  is  indeed  a “fifth  Gospel”  which  sheds 
more  light  on  the  four  than  many  a commentary  brimful  of  learning  and 
critical  conjectures. 

2 1 : 14  : i&ea<rd/j.€&a  r^v  h6^av. -frcdoficu  is  richer  than  6pdco , and  means  to 
behold  or  contemplate  with  admiration  and  delight.  The  plural  adds  force  to 

the  statement,  as  in  21  : 24  ; 1 John  1 : 1 ; 2 Pet.  1 : 16. 


83.  JOHN. 


713 


with  his  hands  (1  John  1 : 1-3).  This  assertion  is  general,  and 
covers  the  whole  public  life  of  our  Lord.  But  he  makes  it  also 
in  particular  a case  of  special  interest  for  the  realness  of  Christ’s 
humanity ; in  recording  the  flow  of  blood  and  water  from  the 
wounded  side,  he  adds  emphatically : “ He  that  hath  seen  hath 
borne  witness,  and  his  witness  is  true : and  he  knoweth  that  he 
saith  things  that  are  true,  that  ye  also  may  believe”  (19  : 35). 
Here  we  are  driven  to  the  alternative  : either  the  writer  was  a 
true  witness  of  what  he  relates,  or  he  was  a false  witness  who 
wrote  down  a deliberate  lie. 

5.  Finally,  the  writer  intimates  that  he  is  one  of  the  Twelve , 
that  he  is  one  of  the  favorite  three , that  he  is  not  Peter,  nor 
James,  that  he  is  none  other  than  the  beloved  John  who  leaned 
on  the  Master’s  bosom.  He  never  names  himself,  nor  his  brother 
James,  nor  his  mother  Salome,  but  he  has  a very  modest,  deli- 
cate, and  altogether  unique  way  of  indirect  self-designation. 
He  stands  behind  his  Gospel  like  a mysterious  figure  with  a 
thin  veil  over  his  face  without  ever  lifting  the  veil.  He  leaves 
the  reader  to  infer  the  name  by  combination.  He  is  undoubtedly 
that  unnamed  disciple  who,  with  Andrew,  was  led  to  Jesus  by 
the  testimony  of  the  Baptist  on  the  banks  of  the  Jordan  (1  : 35— 
40),  the  disciple  who  at  the  last  Supper  “ was  reclining  at  the 
table  in  Jesus’  bosom”  (13  : 23-25),  that  “other  disciple”  who, 
with  Peter,  followed  Jesus  into  the  court  of  the  liigh-priest 
(18  : 15,  16),  who  stood  by  the  cross  and  was  intrusted  by  the 
dying  Lord  with  the  care  of  His  mother  (19  : 26,  27),  and  that 
“ other  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,”  who  went  with  Peter  to  the 
empty  sepulchre  on  the  resurrection  morning  and  was  convinced 
of  the  great  fact  by  the  sight  of  the  grave-cloths,  and  the  head- 
cover  rolled  up  in  a place  by  itself  (20  : 2-8).  All  these  narra- 
tives are  interwoven  with  autobiographic  details.  He  calls 
himself  “ the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,”  not  from  vanity  (as 
has  been  most  strangely  asserted  by  some  critics),  but  in  blessed 
and  thankful  remembrance  of  the  infinite  mercy  of  his  divine 
Master  who  thus  fulfilled  the  prophecy  of  his  name  Johanan , 
i.e .,  Jehovah  is  gracious.  In  that  peculiar  love  of  his  all-beloved 


714 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Lord  was  summed  up  for  him  the  whole  significance  of  his 
life. 

With  this  mode  of  self -designation  corresponds  the  designa- 
tion of  members  of  his  family : his  mother  is  probably  meant 
by  the  unnamed  “sister  of  the  mother”  of  Jesus,  who  stood  by 
the  cross  (John  19  : 25),  for  Salome  was  there,  according  to  the 
Synoptists,  and  John  would  hardly  omit  this  fact ; and  in  the 
list  of  the  disciples  to  whom  Jesus  appeared  at  the  Lake  of 
Galilee,  “ the  sons  of  Zebedee  ” are  put  last  (21 : 2),  when  yet  in 
all  the  Synoptic  lists  of  the  apostles  they  are,  with  Peter  and 
Andrew,  placed  at  the  head  of  the  Twelve.  This  difference  can 
only  be  explained  from  motives  of  delicacy  and  modesty. 

What  a contrast  the  author  presents  to  those  pseudonymous 
literary  forgers  of  the  second  and  third  centuries,  who  un- 
scrupulously put  their  writings  into  the  mouth  of  the  apostles 
or  other  honored  names  to  lend  them  a fictitious  charm  and 
authority ; and  yet  who  cannot  conceal  the  fraud  which  leaks 
out  on  every  page. 

Conclusion. 

A review  of  this  array  of  testimonies,  external  and  internal, 
drives  us  to  the  irresistible  conclusion  that  the  fourth  Gospel  is 
the  work  of  John,  the  apostle.  This  view  is  clear,  self-con- 
sistent, and  in  full  harmony  with  the  character  of  the  book  and 
the  whole  history  of  the  apostolic  age ; while  the  hypothesis  of 
a literary  fiction  and  pious  fraud  is  contradictory,  absurd,  and 
self-condemned.  No  writer  in  the  second  century  could  have 
produced  such  a marvellous  book,  which  towers  high  above  all 
the  books  of  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian  and 
Clement  and  Origen,  or  any  other  father  or  schoolman  or  re- 
former. No  writer  in  the  first  century  could  have  written  it 
but  an  apostle,  and  no  apostle  but  John,  and  John  himself  could 
not  have  written  it  without  divine  inspiration. 


§ 84.  REVIEW  OF  THE  JOIIANNEAN  PROBLEM.  715 


§ 84.  Critical  Review  of  the  Johannean  Problem . 

See  the  Liter,  in  g 40,  pp.  408  sqq.,  and  the  history  of  the  controversy  by 
Holtzmann,  in  Bunsen’s  Bibelwerk , VIII.  56  sqq.  ; Reuss,  Gescli.  der 
heil.  Schriften  N.  T.'s  (6th  ed.),  I.  248  sqq. ; Godet,  Com.  (3d  ed.), 
I.  32  sqq.  ; Holtzmann,  Einleitung  (2d  ed.),  423  sqq.  ; Weiss,  Ein- 
leitung  (1886),  609  sqq. 

The  importance  of  the  subject  justifies  a special  section  on  the 
opposition  to  the  fourth  Gospel,  after  we  have  presented  our 
own  view  on  the  subject  with  constant  reference  to  the  recent 
objections. 

The  Problem  Stated. 

The  Johannean  problem  is  the  burning  question  of  modern 
criticism  on  the  soil  of  the  New  Testament.  It  arises  from  the 
difference  between  John  and  the  Synoptists  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  difference  between  the  fourth  Gospel  and  the  Apoca- 
lypse on  the  other. 

I.  The  Synoptic  aspect  of  the  problem  includes  the  differ- 
ences between  the  first  three  Evangelists  and  the  fourth  concern- 
ing the  theatre  and  length  of  Christ’s  ministry,  the  picture  of 
Christ,  the  nature  and  extent  of  his  discourses,  and  a number  of 
minor  details.  It  admits  the  following  possibilities : 

(1.)  Both  the  Synoptists  and  John  are  historical,  and  repre- 
sent only  different  aspects  of  the  same  person  and  work  of 
Christ,  supplementing  and  confirming  each  other  in  every  essen- 
tial point.  This  is  the  faith  of  the  Church  and  the  conviction 
of  nearly  all  conservative  critics  and  commentators. 

(2.)  The  fourth  Gospel  is  the  work  of  John,  and,  owing  to 
his  intimacy  with  Christ,  it  is  more  accurate  and  reliable  than 
the  Synoptists,  who  contain  some  legendary  embellishments  and 
even  errors,  derived  from  oral  tradition,  and  must  be  rectified 
by  John.  This  is  the  view  of  Schleiermacher,  Lucke,  Bleek, 
Ewald,  Meyer,  Weiss,  and  a considerable  number  of  liberal 
critics  and  exegetes  who  yet  accept  the  substance  of  the  whole 


716 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


gospel  history  as  true,  and  Christ  as  the  Lord  and  Saviour  of 
the  race.  The  difference  between  these  scholars  and  the  church 
tradition  is  not  fundamental,  and  admits  of  adjustment. 

(3.)  The  Synoptists  represent  (in  the  main)  the  Christ  of  his- 
tory, the  fourth  Gospel  the  ideal  Christ  of  faith  and  fiction.  So 
Baur  and  the  Tubingen  school  (Schwegler,  Zeller,  Kostlin, 
Hilgenfeld,  Volkmar,  Holtzmann,  Ilausrath,  Sclienkel,  Man- 
gold, Keim,  Thoma),  with  their  followers  and  sympathizers  in 
France  (Nicolas,  d’Eichthal,  Henan,  Reville,  Sabatier),  Holland 
(Scholten  and  the  Leyden  school),  and  England  (the  anonymous 
author  of  “ Supernatural  Religion,”  Sam.  Davidson,  Edwin  A. 
Abbott).  But  these  critics  eliminate  the  miraculous  even  from 
the  Synoptic  Christ,  at  least  as  far  as  possible,  and  approach  the 
fourth  hypothesis. 

(4.)  The  Synoptic  and  Johannean  Gospels  are  alike  fictitious, 
and  resolve  themselves  into  myths  and  legends  or  pious  frauds. 
This  is  the  position  of  the  extreme  left  wing  of  modern  criti- 
cism represented  chiefly  by  Strauss.  It  is  the  legitimate  result 
of  the  denial  of  the  supernatural  and  miraculous,  which  is  as 
inseparable  from  the  Synoptic  as  it  is  from  the  Johannean 
Christ ; but  it  is  also  subversive  of  all  history  and  cannot  be 
seriously  maintained  in  the  face  of  overwhelming  facts  and 
results.  Hence  there  has  been  a considerable  reaction  among 
the  radical  critics  in  favor  of  a more  historical  position.  Keim’s 
“ History  of  Jesus  of  Nazara  ” is  a very  great  advance  upon 
Strauss’s  “ Leben  Jesu,”  though  equally  critical  and  more 
learned,  and  meets  the  orthodox  view  half  way  on  the  ground 
of  the  Synoptic  tradition,  as  represented  in  the  Gospel  of  Mat- 
thew, which  he  dates  back  to  a.d.  66. 

II.  The  Apocalyptic  aspect  of  the  Johannean  problem  belongs 
properly  to  the  consideration  of  the  Apocalypse,  but  it  has  of 
late  been  inseparably  interwoven  with  the  Gospel  question.  It 
admits  likewise  of  four  distinct  views : 

(1.)  The  fourth  Gospel  and  the  Apocalypse  are  both  from  the 
pen  of  the  apostle  John,  but  separated  by  the  nature  of  the  sub- 
ject, the  condition  of  the  writer,  and  an  interval  of  at  least 


§ 84.  REVIEW  OF  TIIE  JOIIANNEAN  PROBLEM.  717 


twenty  or  thirty  years,  to  account  for  the  striking  differences  of 
temper  and  style.  When  he  met  Paul  at  Jerusalem,  a.d.  50,  he 
was  one  of  the  three  “ pillar-apostles  ” of  Jewish  Christianity 
(Gal.  2 : 9),  but  probably  less  than  forty  years  of  age,  remarkably 
silent  with  his  reserved  force,  and  sufficiently  in  sympathy  with 
Paul  to  give  him  the  right  hand  of  fellowship ; when  he  wrote 
the  Apocalypse,  between  a.d.  68  and  70,  he  was  not  yet  sixty, 
and  when  he  wrote  the  Gospel  lie  was  over  eighty  years  of  age. 
Moreover,  the  differences  between  the  two  books  are  more  than 
counterbalanced  by  an  underlying  harmony.  This  has  been 
acknowledged  even  by  the  head  of  the  Tubingen  critics,  who 
calls  the  fourth  Gospel  an  Apocalypse  spiritualized  or  a trans^ 
figuration  of  the  Apocalypse.1 

(2.)  John  wrote  the  Gospel,  but  not  the  Apocalypse.  Many 
critics  of  the  moderate  school  are  disposed  to  surrender  the 
Apocalypse  and  to  assign  it  to  the  somewhat  doubtful  and  mys- 
terious “Presbyter  John,”  a contemporary  of  the  Apostle  John. 
So  Sclileiermacher,  Liicke,  Bleek,  Neander,  Ewald,  Dusterdieck, 
etc.  If  we  are  to  choose  between  the  two  books,  the  Gospel  has 
no  doubt  stronger  claims  upon  our  acceptance. 

(3.)  John  wrote  the  Apocalypse,  but  for  this  very  reason  he 
cannot  have  written  the  fourth  Gospel.  So  Baur,  Henan,  David- 
son, Abbott,  and  nearly  all  the  radical  critics  (except  Iveim). 

(4.)  The  fourth  Gospel  and  the  Apocalypse  are  both  spurious 
and  tile  work  of  the  Gnostic  Cerinthus  (as  the  Alogi  held),  or  of 
some  anonymous  forger.  This  view  is  so  preposterous  and  un- 
sound that  no  critic  of  any  reputation  for  learning  and  judgment 
dares  to  defend  it. 

There  is  a correspondence  between  the  four  possible  attitudes 
on  both  aspects  of  the  Johannean  question,  and  the  parties 
advocating  them. 

The  result  of  the  conflict  will  be  the  substantial  triumph  of 
the  faith  of  the  church  which  accepts,  on  new  grounds  of  evi- 
dence, all  the  four  Gospels  as  genuine  and  historical,  and  the 
Apocalypse  and  the  fourth  Gospel  as  the  works  of  John. 

1 See  p.  419  sq.,  and  my  Companion  to  the  Greek  Testament , pp.  76  sqq. 


718 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


The  Assaults  oh  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

Criticism  lias  completely  shifted  its  attitude  on  both  parts  of 
the  problem.  The  change  is  very  remarkable.  When  the  first 
serious  assault  was  made  upon  the  genuineness  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  by  the  learned  General  Superintendent  Bretschneider 
(in  1820),  he  was  met  with  such  overwhelming  opposition,  not 
only  from  evangelical  divines  like  Olshausen  and  Tholuck,  but 
also  from  Schleiermacher,  Liicke,  Credner,  and  Schott,  that  he 
honestly  confessed  his  defeat  a few  years  afterward  (1824  and 
1828). 1 And  when  Dr.  Strauss,  in  his  Leben  Jesu  (1835),  re- 
newed the  denial,  a host  of  old  and  new  defenders  arose  with 
such  powerful  arguments  that  he  himself  (as  he  confessed  in  the 
third  edition  of  1838)  was  shaken  in  his  doubt,  especially  by  the 
weight  and  candor  of  Heander,  although  he  felt  compelled,  in 
self-defence,  to  reaffirm  his  doubt  as  essential  to  the  mythical 
hypothesis  (in  the  fourth  edition,  1840,  and  afterward  in  his 
popular  Leben  Jesu , 1864). 

But  in  the  meantime  his  teacher,  Dr.  Baur,  the  coryphaeus 
of  the  Tubingen  school,  was  preparing  his  heavy  ammunition, 
and  led  the  second,  the  boldest,  the  most  vigorous  and  effective 
assault  upon  the  Johannean  fort  (since  1844).a  He  was  fol- 
lowed in  the  main  question,  though  with  considerable  modifica- 
tions in  detail,  by  a number  of  able  and  acute  critics  in  Ger- 
many and  other  countries.  He  represented  the  fourth  Gospel 
as  a purely  ideal  work  which  grew  out  of  the  Gnostic,  Monta- 

1 Before  him  Edward  Evanson,  an  ex-clergyman  of  the  Church  of  England, 
had  attacked  John  and  all  other  Gospels  except  Luke,  in  The  Dissonance  of  the 
Four  generally  received  Evangelists,  1792.  He  was  refuted  by  the  Unitarian, 
Dr.  Priestley,  who  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Gospel  of  John  “bears 
more  internal  and  unequivocal  marks  of  being  written  by  an  eye-witness  than 
any  other  writings  whatever,  sacred  or  profane.”  See  his  Letters  to  a Young 
Man  ( Works , vol.  XX.  430). 

2 TJeber  die  Composition  und  den  Charakter  desjoh.  Evangeliums , an  essay  in 
the  “ Theol.  Jahrbiicher  ” of  Zeller,  Tubingen,  1844  ; again  in  his  Krit.  Vnter- 
suchungen  uber  die  kanon.  Evang . , Tub.,  1847,  and  in  his  Kirchengesch. , 1853 
(vol.  I.,  pp.  146  sqq.,  166  sqq.,  third  ed. ).  Godet  (I.  17)  calls  the  first  disser- 
tation of  Baur  justly  “ one  of  the  most  ingenious  and  brilliant  compositions 
which  theological  science  ever  produced.” 


§ 84.  REVIEW  OF  THE  JOHANNEAN  PROBLEM.  719 


nistic,  and  paschal  controversies  after  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  and  adjusted  the  various  elements  of  the  Catholic  faith 
with  consummate  skill  and  art.  It  was  not  intended  to  be 
a history,  but  a system  of  theology  in  the  garb  of  history. 
This  “ tendency  ” hypothesis  was  virtually  a death-blow  to  the 
mythical  theory  of  Strauss,  which  excludes  conscious  design. 

The  third  great  assault  inspired  by  Baur,  yet  with  independ- 
ent learning  and  judgment,  was  made  by  Dr.  Keim  (in  his 
Geschichte  Jesu  von  Nazara , 1867).  He  went  beyond  Baur  in 
one  point : he  denied  the  whole  tradition  of  John’s  sojourn  in 
Ephesus  as  a mistake  of  Irenseus ; he  thus  removed  even  the 
foundation  for  the  defence  of  the  Apocalypse  as  a Johannean 
production,  and  neutralized  the  force  of  the  Tubingen  assault 
derived  from  that  book.  On  the  other  hand,  he  approached  the 
traditional  view  by  tracing  the  composition  back  from  170 
(Baur)  to  the  reign  of  Trajan,  i.e .,  to  within  a few  years  after 
the  death  of  the  apostle.  In  his  denial  of  the  Ephesus  tradition 
he  met  with  little  favor,1  but  strong  opposition  from  the  Tubin- 
gen critics,  who  see  the  fatal  bearing  of  this  denial  upon  the 
genuineness  of  the  Apocalypse.2  The  effect  of  Iveim’s  move- 
ment therefore  tended  rather  to  divide  and  demoralize  the  be- 
sieging force. 

Nevertheless  the  effect  of  these  persistent  attacks  was  so 
great  that  three  eminent  scholars,  Hase  of  Jena  (1876),  Beuss 
of  Strassburg,  and  Sabatier  of  Paris  (1879),  deserted  from  the 
camp  of  the  defenders  to  the  army  of  the  besiegers.  Benan, 
too,  who  had  in  the  thirteenth  edition  of  his  Vie  de  Jesus  (1867) 
defended  the  fourth  Gospel  at  least  in  part,  has  now  (since  1879, 
in  his  I? figlise  chretienne)  given  it  up  entirely.3 

1 From  Wittichen  and  Scholten. 

* Especially  from  Hilgenfeld.  The  tradition  of  the  Ephesian  sojourn  of 
John  is  one  of  the  strongest  and  most  constant  in  the  ancient  church,  and 
goes  back  to  Polycrates,  Irenseus,  Polycarp,  and  Papias,  the  very  pupils  and 
grand  pupils  of  John,  who  could  not  possibly  be  mistaken  on  such  a simple 
fact  as  this. 

’Dr.  Weiss  ( Leben  Jesu , I.  108)  accords  to  Dr.  Baur  the  merit  of  having 
penetrated  deeper  into  the  peculiar  character  of  the  fourth  Gospel  and  done 
more  for  the  promotion  of  its  understanding  than  the  mechanical  old  exegesis, 


720 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


The  Defence  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

The  incisive  criticism  of  Baur  and  his  school  compelled  a 
thorough  reinvestigation  of  the  whole  problem,  and  in  this  way 
has  been  of  very  great  service  to  the  cause  of  truth.  We  owe  to 
it  the  ablest  defences  of  the  Johannean  authorship  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  and  the  precious  history  which  it  represents.  Promi- 
nent among  these  defenders  against  the  latest  attacks  were 
Bleek,  Lange,  Ebrard,  Thiersch,  Schneider,  Tischendorf,  Kig- 
genbach,  Ewald,  Steitz,  Aberle,  Meyer,  Luthardt,  Wieseler, 
Beyschlag,  Weiss,  among  the  Germans;  Godet,  Pressense, 
Astie,  among  the  French  ; Niermeyer,  Van  Oosterzee,  Hofstede 
de  Groot,  among  the  Dutch  ; Alford,  Milligan,  Lightfoot,  West- 
cott,  Sanday,  Plummer,  among  the  English ; Fisher,  and  Abbot 
among  the  Americans.1 

It  is  significant  that  the  school  of  negative  criticism  has 
produced  no  learned  commentary  on  John.  All  the  recent 
commentators  on  the  fourth  Gospel  (Liicke,  Ewald,  Lange, 
llengstenberg,  Luthardt,  Meyer,  Weiss,  Alford,  Wordsworth, 
Godet,  Westcott,  Milligan,  Moulton,  Plummer,  etc.)  favor  its 
genuineness. 

which  had  no  conception  of  the  difference  and  looked  only  for  dicta probantia  ; 
but  he  justly  adds  that  Baur's  criticism  is  “ sicklied  all  over  with  the  pale 
cast”  of  modern  philosophical  construction  (von  der  Bldsse  moderner  philosoph- 
ischer  Construction  anc/ekrdnkelt).  We  are  prepared  to  say  the  same  of  Dr. 
Keim,  a proud,  but  noble  and  earnest  spirit  who  died  of  overwork  in  elabo- 
rating his  History  of  Jesus  of  Nazara.  The  most  scholarly,  high-toned,  and 
singularly  able  argument  in  the  English  language  against  the  Johannean 
authorship  of  the  fourth  Gospel  is  the  article  “Gospels”  in  the  “ Encycl. 
Brit.,”  9th  ed.,  vol.  X.  818-843  (1879),  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Edwin  A.  Abbott, 
head-master  of  the  City  of  London  School. 

1 Without  detracting  from  the  merits  of  the  many  worthy  champions  of  the 
cause  of  truth,  I venture  to  give  the  palm  to  Dr.  Godet,  of  Neucliatel,  in  the 
introductory  volume  to  his  third  and  thoroughly  revised  Commentary  on  John 
( Introduction  historique  ct  critique , Paris,  1881,  376  pages),  and  to  Dr.  Weiss, 
of  Berlin,  in  his  very  able  Leben  Jesu,  Beilin,  1882,  vol.  I.  84-198.  In  Eng- 
land the  battle  has  been  fought  chiefly  by  Bishop  Lightfoot,  Canon  Westcott, 
Prof.  Milligan,  and  Dr.  Sanday.  In  America,  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot  (1880)  is  equal 
to  any  of  them  in  the  accurate  and  effective  presentation  of  the  historical  argu- 
ment for  the  Johannean  authorship  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  His  treatise  has 
been  reprinted  in  his  Critical  Essays , Boston,  1888  (pp.  9-107). 


§ 84.  REVIEW  OF  THE  JOHANNE  AN  PROBLEM.  72] 


The  Difficulties  of  tite  Anti- Jon annean  Theory. 

The  prevailing  theory  of  the  negative  critics  is  this : They 
accept  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  with  the  exception  of  the  miracles, 
as  genuine  history,  but  for  this  very  reason  they  reject  John ; 
and  they  accept  the  Apocalypse  as  the  genuine  work  of  the 
apostle  John,  who  is  represented  by  the  Synoptists  as  a Son  of 
Thunder,  and  by  Paul  (Gal.  2)  as  one  of  the  three  pillars  of 
conservative  Jewish  Christianity,  but  for  this  very  reason  they 
deny  that  he  can  have  written  the  Gospel,  which  in  style  and 
spirit  differs  so  widely  from  the  Apocalypse.  For  this  position 
they  appeal  to  the  fact  that  the  Synoptists  and  the  Apocalypse 
are  equally  well,  and  even  better  supported  by  internal  and  ex- 
ternal evidence,  and  represent  a tradition  which  is  at  least 
twenty  years  older. 

But  what  then  becomes  of  the  fourth  Gospel  ? It  is  incredi- 
ble that  the  real  John  should  have  falsified  the  history  of  his 
Master;  consequently  the  Gospel  which  bears  his  name  is  a 
post-apostolic  fiction,  a religious  poem,  or  a romance  on  the 
theme  of  the  incarnate  Logos.  It  is  the  Gospel  of  Christian 
Gnosticism,  strongly  influenced  by  the  Alexandrian  philosophy 
of  Philo.  Yet  it  is  no  fraud  any  more  than  other  literary 
fictions.  The  unknown  author  dealt  with  the  historical  Jesus 
of  the  Synoptists,  as  Plato  dealt  with  Socrates,  making  him 
simply  the  base  for  his  own  sublime  speculations,  and  putting 
speeches  into  his  mouth  which  he  never  uttered. 

Who  was  that  Christian  Plato  ? No  critic  can  tell,  or  even 
conjecture,  except  Penan,  who  revived,  as  possible  at  least,  the 
absurd  view  of  the  Alogi,  that  the  Gnostic  heretic,  Cerinthus, 
the  enemy  of  John,  wrote  the  fourth  Gospel ! 1 Such  a conjec- 

1 “ Tout  esl  possible,"  says  Renan  (Ufiglise  chret.,  p.  54),  “ d ces  epoques  tene- 
breuses  ; et,  si  V figlise,  en  venerant  le  quatrieme  Euangile  comme  l' oeuvre  de  Jean , 
est  dupe  de  celui  qu'elle  regarde  comme  un  de  ses  plus  dangereux  ennemis , cela 
n'est  pas  en  somme  plus  etrange  que  tant  d' autre s malentendus  qui  composent  la 
trame  de  Vhistoire  religieuse  de  Vhumanite.  Ce  qu'il  y a de  sur,  c'est  que  V au- 
teur est  d lafois  le  per e et  Vadversaire  du  gnosticisme , Vennemi  de  ceux  qui  lais- 
saient  s'emporer  dans  un  docetisme  nuageux  Vhumanite  reeUe  de  Jesus  et  le 


722 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


tu re  requires  an  extraordinary  stretch  of  imagination  and  an 
amazing  amount  of  credulity.  The  more  sober  among  the  critics 
suppose  that  the  author  was  a highly  gifted  Ephesian  disciple  of 
John,  who  freely  reproduced  and  modified  his  oral  teaching 
after  he  was  removed  by  death.  But  how  could  his  name  be 
utterly  unknown,  when  the  names  of  Polycarp  and  Papias  and 
other  disciples  of  John,  far  less  important,  have  come  down  to 
us  ? “ The  great  unknown  ” is  a mystery  indeed.  Some  critics, 
half  in  sympathy  with  Tubingen,  are  willing  to  admit  that  John 
himself  wrote  a part  of  the  book,  either  the  historic  narratives 
or  the  discourses,  but  neither  of  these  compromises  will  do: 
the  book  is  a unit,  and  is  either  wholly  genuine  or  wholly  a 
fiction. 

Nor  are  the  negative  critics  agreed  as  to  the  time  of  compo- 
sition. Under  tne  increasing  pressure  of  argument  and  evidence 
they  have  been  forced  to  retreat,  step  by  step,  from  the  last 
quarter  of  the  second  century  to  the  first,  even  within  a few 
years  of  John’s  death,  and  within  the  lifetime  of  hundreds  of 
his  hearers,  when  it  was  impossible  for  a pseudo- Johannean 
book  to  pass  into  general  currency  without  the  discovery  of  the 
fraud.  Dr.  Baur  and  Schwegler  assigned  the  composition  to  a.d. 
170  or  160 ; Yolkmar  to  155  ; Zeller  to  150  ; Scholten  to  140 ; 
Hilgenfeld  to  about  130 ; Penan  to  about  125  ; Schenkel  to  120 
or  115 ; until  Keim  (in  1867)  went  up  as  high  as  110  or  even 
100,  but  having  reached  such  an  early  date,  he  felt  compelled 
(1875) 1 in  self-defence  to  advance  again  to  130,  and  this  not- 
withstanding the  conceded  testimonies  of  Justin  Martyr  and  the 
early  Gnostics.  These  vacillations  of  criticism  reveal  the  im- 
possibility of  locating  the  Gospel  in  the  second  century. 

If  we  surrender  the  fourth  Gospel,  what  shall  we  gain  in  its 
place  ? Fiction  for  fact,  stone  for  bread,  a Gnostic  dream  for 
the  most  glorious  truth. 

complice  de  ceux  qui  le  rdeguaient  dans  V abstraction  divine He  thinks  it 
more  probable,  however  (p.  47),  that  two  Ephesian  disciples  of  John  (John 
the  Presbyter  and  Aristion)  wrote  the  Gospel  twenty  or  thirty  years  after  his 
death. 

1 In  the  last  edition  of  his  abridged  Geschichte  Jesu. 


§ 84.  REVIEW  OF  THE  JOIIANNEAN  PROBLEM.  723 


Fortunately  the  whole  anti-Johannean  hypothesis  breaks 
down  at  every  point.  It  suffers  shipwreck  on  innumerable  de- 
tails which  do  not  fit  at  all  into  the  supposed  dogmatic  scheme, 
but  rest  on  hard  facts  of  historical  recollections.1 

And  instead  of  removing  any  difficulties  it  creates  greater 
difficulties  in  their  place.  There  are  certain  contradictions  which 
no  ingenuity  can  solve.  If  “ the  great  unknown  ” was  the  creative 
artist  of  his  ideal  Christ,  and  the  inventor  of  those  sublime 
discourses,  the  like  of  which  were  never  heard  before  or  since, 
he  must  have  been  a mightier  genius  than  Dante  or  Shake- 
speare, yea  greater  than  his  own  hero,  that  is  greater  than  the 
greatest:  this  is  a psychological  impossibility  and  a logical 
absurdity.  Moreover,  if  he  was  not  John  and  yet  wanted  to  be 
known  as  John,  he  was  a deceiver  and  a liar : 2 this  is  a moral 
impossibility.  The  case  of  Plato  is  very  different,  and  his  rela- 
tion to  Socrates  is  generally  understood.  The  Synoptic  Gospels 
are  anonymous,  but  do  not  deceive  the  reader.  Luke  and  the 
author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  honestly  make  themselves 
known  as  mere  disciples  of  the  apostles.  The  real  parallel  would 
be  the  apocryphal  Gospels  and  the  pseudo-Clementine  produc- 
tions, where  the  fraud  is  unmistakable,  but  the  contents  are  so 
far  below  the  fourth  Gospel  that  a comparison  is  out  of  the 
question.  Literary  fictions  were  not  uncommon  in  the  ancient 
church,  but  men  had  common  sense  and  moral  sense  then  as 
well  as  now  to  distinguish  between  fact  and  fiction,  truth  and  lie. 
It  is  simply  incredible  that  the  ancient  church  should  have  been 
duped  into  a unanimous  acceptance  of  such  an  important  book 
as  the  work  of  the  beloved  disciple  almost  from  the  very  date 
of  his  death,  and  that  the  whole  Christian  church,  Greek,  Latin, 

1 As  Weiss  (I.  109)  admirably  expresses  it : “ Uebercdl  im  Einzelnen,  wie  in 
der  Gesammtgestaltung  des  Lebens  Jesu  stosscn  win  nuf  das  harte  Gestein 
geschichtlicher  Erinnerung , welches  dem  kritischen  Auflosungsprozess,  der  es  in 
idedle  Bildangen  verwandeln  will,  unuberwindlichen  Widerstand  leistet 

2 lk  Als  die  Dichtung  eines  halbgnostischen  Philosophen  aus  dem  zweiten  Jahr - 
hundert  ist  es  [the  fourth  Gospel]  dn  trugerisches  Irrlicht.  ja  in  Wahrheit  eine 
grosse  Luge,”  Weiss,  I.  124.  Renan  admits  the  alternative,  only  in  milder 
terms  : “ Tl  y a Id  un  petit  artifice  litter air e,  du  genre  de  ceux  qu'affectionne 
Platon”  Lc.,  p.  52. 


724 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Protestant,  including  an  innumerable  army  of  scholars,  should 
have  been  under  a radical  delusion  for  eighteen  hundred  years, 
mistaking  a Gnostic  dream  for  the  genuine  history  of  the 
Saviour  of  mankind,  and  drinking  the  water  of  life  from  the 
muddy  source  of  fraud.1 

In  the  meantime  the  fourth  Gospel  continues  and  will  con- 
tinue to  shine,  like  the  sun  in  heaven,  its  own  best  evidence,  and 
will  shine  all  the  brighter  when  the  clouds,  great  and  small,  shall 
have  passed  away. 


§ 85.  The  Acts  of  the  Ajpostles . 


Comp.  § 82. 

1.  Critical  Treatises. 

M.  Schneckenburger  : Zweck  der  Apostelgeschichte.  Bern,  1841. 

Schwanbeck  : Quellen  der  Ap.  Gescli.  Darmstadt,  1847. 

Ed.  Zeller  : Contents  and  Origin  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Stuttg., 
1854 ; trsl.  by  Jos.  Dare , 1875-76,  London,  2 vols. 

Lekebusch  : Composition  u.  Entstehung  der  Ap.  Gescli.  Gotha,  1854. 

Klostermann  : Vindicice  Lucance.  Gottingen,  1866. 

Arthur  Konig  (R.  C.)  : Die  Aechtheit  der  Ap.  Gesch.  Breslau,  1867. 

J.  R.  Oertel  : Paulus  in  der  Ap.  Gesch.  Der  histor.  Char,  dieser  Schrift, 
etc.  Halle,  1868. 

J.  B.  Lightfoot  : Illustrations  of  the  Acts  from  recent  Discoveries,  in  the 
“ Contemporary  Review  ” for  May,  1878,  pp.  288-296. 

Dean  Howson  : Bohlen  Lectures  on  the  Evidential  Value  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  delivered  in  Philadelphia,  1880.  London  and  New  York, 
1880. 

Friedr.  Zimmer  : Galaterhrief  und  Apostelgeschichte.  Hildburghausen, 
1882. 

Comp,  also,  in  part,  J.  H.  Scholten  : Das  Paulinische  Evangelium,  trsl. 
from  the  Dutch  by  Redepenning,  Elberf.,  1881.  A critical  essay  on 
the  writings  of  Luke  (pp.  254  sqq.). 

1 This  absurdity  is  strikingly  characterized  in  the  lines  of  the  Swabian  poet, 

Gustav  Schwab,  which  he  gave  me  when  I was  a student  at  Tubingen  shortly 

after  the  appearance  of  Strauss’s  Leben  Jesu: 

44  Hat  dieses  Buck , das  ew'ge  Wahrheit  ist , 

Ein  liigenhafter  Gnostiker  geschrieben. 

So  hat  seit  tausend  Jahren  Jesus  Christ 
Den  Teufel  durch  Beelzebub  vertrieben.” 


§ 85.  THE  ACTS  OF  TIIE  APOSTLES. 


725 


2.  Commentaries  on  Acts. 

By  Chrysostom  ; Jerome  ; Calvin  ; Olshausen  ; De  Wette  (4th  ed.,  re- 
vised by  Ovei'beck,  1870) ; Meyer  (4th  ed.,  1870 ; 5th  ed.,  revised  by 
Wendt , 1880) ; Baumgarten  (in  2 parts,  1852,  Engl,  transl.  in  3 
vols.,  Edinburgh,  1856) ; Jos.  A.  Alexander  ; H.  B.  Hackett  (2d 
ed.,  1858 ; 3d  ed.,  1877) ; Ewald  (1872)  ; Lechler-Gerok  (in 
Lange’s  BibelwerJc , transl.  by  Schaeffer , N.  Y.,  1866) ; F.  C.  Cook 
(Lond.,  1866)  ; Alford  ; Wordsworth  ; Gloag  ; Plumttre  (in 
Ellicott’s  Com.) ; Jacobson  (in  the  “ Speaker’s  Com.,”  1880) ; 
Lumby  (in  the  “Cambridge Bible  for  Schools,”  1880) ; Howson  and 
Spence  (in  Schaff’s  “Popul.  Com.,”  1880;  revised  for  “Revision 
Com.,”  N.  Y.,  1882) ; K.  Schmidt  (Die  Apostelgesch.  unter  dem 
HauptgesichtspunJct  ihrer  Glaubwiirdigkeit  kritisch  exegetisch  bearbeitet. 
Erlangen,  1882,  2 vols.) ; Nosgen  (Leipz.  1882),  Bethge  (1887). 


The  Acts  and  the  Third  Gospel. 

The  book  of  Acts,  though  placed  by  the  ancient  ecclesiastical 
division  not  in  the  “ Gospel,”  but  in  the  “ Apostle,”  is  a direct 
continuation  of  the  third  Gospel,  by  the  same  author,  and  ad- 
dressed to  the  same  Theophilus,  probably  a Christian  convert 
of  distinguished  social  position.  In  the  former  he  reports  what 
he  heard  and  read,  in  the  latter  what  he  heard  and  saw.  The 
one  records  the  life  and  work  of  Christ,  the  other  the  work  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  who  is  recognized  at  every  step.  The  word 
Spirit,  or  Holy  Spirit,  occurs  more  frequently  in  the  Acts  than 
in  any  other  book  of  the  Hew  Testament.  It  might  properly 
be  called  “ the  Gospel  of  the  Holy  Spirit.” 

The  universal  testimony  of  the  ancient  church  traces  the  two 
books  to  the  same  author.  This  is  confirmed  by  internal  evi- 
dence of  identity  of  style,  continuity  of  narrative,  and  corre- 
spondence of  plan.  About  fifty  words  not  found  elsewhere  in 
the  Hew  Testament  are  common  to  both  books.1 

1 See  the  conclusive  proof  in  Zeller,  pp.  414-452  (Engl,  transl.  by  Dare,  vol. 
II.  213-254).  Holfczmann  (Syn.  Evang .,  p.  375) : “ Als  ausgemacht  darf  man 
heutzutage  zoohl  annehmen , dass  der  Verfasser  der  Apostelgeschichte  und  des 
dritten  Evangdiums  ein  und  dieselbe  Person  sind .”  Renan  speaks  in  the  same 
confident  tone  ( Les  Apotres . pp.  x.  and  xi.) : “ Une  chose  hors  de  doute , c'est 
que  les  Actes  ont  eut  le  meme  auteur  que  le  troisieme  evangile  et  sont  une  contin- 
uation de  cet  evangile.  ...  La  parfaite  ressemblance  du  style  et  des  idles 


726 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Object  and  Contents. 

The  Acts  is  a cheerful  and  encouraging  book,  like  the  third 
Gospel ; it  is  full  of  missionary  zeal  and  hope  ; it  records  pro- 
gress after  progress,  conquest  after  conquest,  and  turns  even 
persecution  and  martyrdom  into  an  occasion  of  joy  and  thanks- 
giving. It  is  the  first  church  history.  It  begins  in  Jerusalem 
and  ends  in  Rome.  An  additional  chapter  would  probably  have 
recorded  the  terrible  persecution  of  Nero  and  the  heroic  mar- 
tyrdom of  Paul  and  Peter.  But  this  would  have  made  the 
book  a tragedy ; instead  of  that  it  ends  as  cheerfully  and  tri- 
umphantly as  it  begins. 

It  represents  the  origin  and  progress  of  Christianity  from  the 
capital  of  Judaism  to  the  capital  of  heathenism.  It  is  a history 
of  the  planting  of  the  church  among  the  Jews  by  Peter,  and 
among  the  Gentiles  by  Paul.  Its  theme  is  expressed  in  the 
promise  of  the  risen  Christ  to  his  disciples  (1 : 8) : “Ye  shall 
receive  power,  when  the  Holy  Spirit  is  come  upon  you  (ch.  2) : 
and  ye  shall  be  my  witnesses  both  in  Jerusalem  (chs.  3-7),  and 
in  all  Judaea  and  Samaria  (chs.  8-12),  and  unto  the  uttermost 
part  of  the  earth  ” (chs.  13-28).  The  Gospel  of  Luke,  which  is 
the  Pauline  Gospel,  laid  the  foundation  by  showing  how  salva- 
tion, coming  from  the  Jews  and  opposed  by  the  Jews,  was  in' 
tended  for  all  men,  Samaritans  and  Gentiles.  The  Acts  exhib- 
its the  progress  of  the  church  from  and  among  the  Jews  to  the 
Gentiles  by  the  ministry  of  Peter,  then  of  Stephen,  then  of 
Philip  in  Samaria,  then  of  Peter  again  in  the  conversion  of 
Cornelius,  and  at  last  by  the  labors  of  Paul  and  his  companions.1 

fournissent  d cet  egard  d'abondantes  demonstrations.  . . . Les  deux  livres 

reunis  font  un  ensemble  absolument  du  meme  style,  presentant  les  memes  locutions 
favorites  et  la  meme  far  on  de  citer  Vecriture .”  Scholten  dissents  from  this 
view  and  vainly  tries  to  show  that  while  both  books  originated  in  the  school 
of  Paul,  the  third  evangelist  elevates  Paulinism  above  Jewish  Christianity, 
and  the  author  of  Acts  recommends  Paul  to  the  Jewish-Christian  party.  The 
Gospel  is  polemical,  the  Acts  apologetic.  Das  Paulinische  Evangelium , etc., 
transl.  from  the  Dutch  by  Redepenning,  Elberf.,  1881,  p.  315. 

1 The  history  of  the  Reformation  furnishes  a parallel  ; namely,  the  further 
progress  of  Christianity  from  Rome  (the  Christian  Jerusalem)  to  Wittenberg, 


§ 85.  TIIE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 


727 


The  Acts  begins  with  the  ascension  of  Christ,  or  his  accession 
to  his  throne,  and  the  founding  of  his  kingdom  by  the  outpour- 
ing of  the  Holy  Spirit ; it  closes  with  the  joyful  preaching  of 
the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  in  the  capital  of  the  then  known 
world. 

The  objective  representation  of  the  progress  of  the  church  is 
the  chief  aim  of  the  work,  and  the  subjective  and  biographical 
features  are  altogether  subordinate.  Before  Peter,  the  hero  of 
the  first  or  Jewish-Cliristian  division,  and  Paul,  the  hero  of  the 
second  or  Gentile-Christian  part,  the  other  apostles  retire  and 
are  only  once  named,  except  John,  the  elder  James,  Stephen, 
and  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord.  Even  the  lives  of  the 
pillar-apostles  appear  in  the  history  only  so  far  as  they  are  con- 
nected with  the  missionary  work.  In  this  view  the  long- 
received  title  of  the  book,  added  by  some  other  hand  than  the 
author’s,  is  not  altogether  correct,  though  in  keeping  with 
ancient  usage  (as  in  the  apocryphal  literature,  which  includes 
“ Acts  of  Pilate/’  “ Acts  of  Peter  and  Paul,”  “ Acts  of  Philip,” 
etc.).  More  than  three-fifths  of  it  are  devoted  to  Paul,  and 
especially  to  his  later  labors  and  journeys,  in  which  the  author 
could  speak  from  personal  knowledge.  The  book  is  simply  a 
selection  of  biographical  memoirs  of  Peter  and  Paul  connected 
with  the  planting  of  Christianity  or  the  beginnings  of  the 
church  ( Origines  Ecclesice). 

Sources. 

Luke,  the  faithful  pupil  and  companion  of  Paul,  was  emi- 
nently fitted  to  produce  the  history  of  the  primitive  church. 
For  the  first  part  he  had  the  aid  not  only  of  oral  tradition,  but 
also  of  Palestinian  documents,  as  he  had  in  preparing  his  Gos- 
pel. Hence  the  Hebrew  coloring  in  the  earlier  chapters  of  Acts ; 
while  afterward  he  writes  as  pure  Greek,  as  in  the  classical 
prologue  of  his  Gospel.  Most  of  the  events  in  the  second  part 
came  under  his  personal  observation.  Hence  he  often  speaks 

Geneva.  Oxford  and  Edinburgh,  through  the  labors  of  Luther,  Calvin,  Cran- 
mer  and  Knox. 


728 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


in  the  plural  number,  modestly  including  himself.1  The  “we* 
sections  begin  ch.  16  : 10,  when  Paul  started  from  Troas  to 
Macedonia  (a.d.  51) ; they  break  off  when  he  leaves  Philippi 
for  Corintli  (17:1);  they  are  resumed  (20  : 5,  6)  when  he  visits 
Macedonia  again  seven  years  later  (58),  and  then  continue  to 
the  close  of  the  narrative  (a.d.  63).  Luke  probably  remained 
several  years  at  Philippi,  engaged  in  missionary  labors,  until 
Paul’s  return.  He  was  in  the  company  of  Paul,  including  the 
interruptions,  at  least  twelve  years.  He  was  again  with  Paul 
in  his  last  captivity,  shortly  before  his  martyrdom,  his  most 
faithful  and  devoted  companion  (2  Tim.  4 : 11). 

Time  of  Composition. 

Luke  probably  began  the  book  of  Acts  or  a preliminary  diary 
during  his  missionary  journeys  with  Paul  in  Greece,  especially 
in  Philippi,  where  he  seems  to  have  tarried  several  years ; he 
continued  it  in  Caesarea,  where  he  had  the  best  opportunity  to 
gather  reliable  information  of  the  earlier  history,  from  Jerusa- 
lem, and  such  living  witnesses  as  Cornelius  and  his  friends, 
from  Philip  and  his  daughters,  who  resided  in  Caesarea ; and 
he  finished  it  soon  after  Paul’s  first  imprisonment  in  Pome, 
before  the  terrible  persecution  in  the  summer  of  64,  which  he 
could  hardly  have  left  unnoticed. 

We  look  in  vain  for  any  allusion  to  this  persecution  and  the 
martyrdom  of  Paul  or  Peter,  or  to  any  of  their  Epistles,  or  to 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  or  to  the  later  organization  of  the 
church,  or  the  superiority  of  the  bishop  over  the  presbyter 
(Comp.  20  : 17,  28),  or  the  Gnostic  heresies,  except  by  way  of 
prophetic  warning  (20  : 30).  This  silence  in  a historical  work 

1 Ewald,  in  his  Commentary  on  Acts  (1872),  pp.  35  sqq.,  infers  from  the  use 
of  the  little  word  we  and  its  connection  with  the  other  portions  that  the  whole 
work  is  from  one  and  the  same  author,  who  is  none  other  than  Luke  of  Anti- 
och, the  “beloved”  friend  and  colaborer  of  Paul.  Renan  says  {Lee  cupotres , 
p.  xiv.) : “ Je  persiste  d croire  que  le  dernier  redacteur  des  Actes  est  Men  le  dis- 
ciple de  Paul  qui  dit  ‘ nous  ’ aux  derniers  chapitres but  he  puts  the  composi- 
tion down  to  a.d.  71  or  72  (p.  xx.),  and  in  his  Les  ftvangile* , ch.  xix.,  pp.  435 
sqq. , still  later,  to  the  age  of  Domitian. 


§ 85.  THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 


725 


like  this  seems  inexplicable  on  the  assumption  that  the  book 
was  written  after  a.d.  70,  or  even  after  64.  But  if  we  place 
the  composition  before  the  martyrdom  of  Paul,  then  the  last 
verse  is  after  all  an  appropriate  conclusion  of  a missionary  his- 
tory of  Christianity  from  Jerusalem  to  Borne.  For  the  bold 
and  free  testimony  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  in  the  very 
heart  of  the  civilized  world  was  the  sign  and  pledge  of  victory. 

The  Acts  and  the  Gospels. 

The  Acts  is  the  connecting  link  between  the  Gospels  and 
Epistles.  It  presupposes  and  confirms  the  leading  events  in  the 
life  of  Christ,  on  which  the  church  is  built.  The  fact  of  the 
resurrection,  whereof  the  apostles  were  witnesses,  sends  a thrill 
of  joy  and  an  air  of  victory  through  the  whole  book.  God 
raised  Jesus  from  the  dead  and  mightily  proclaimed  him  to  be 
the  Messiah,  the  prince  of  life  and  a Saviour  in  Israel ; this  is 
the  burden  of  the  sermons  of  Peter,  who  shortly  before  had 
denied  his  Master.  He  boldly  bears  witness  to  it  before  the 
people,  in  his  pentecostal  sermon,  before  the  Sanhedrin,  and 
before  Cornelius.  Paul  likewise,  in  his  addresses  at  Antioch  in 
Pisidia,  at  Thessalonica,  on  the  Areopagus  before  the  Athenian 
philosophers,  and  at  Caesarea  before  Festus  and  Agrippa,  em- 
phasizes the  resurrection  without  which  his  own  conversion 
never  could  have  taken  place. 

The  Acts  and  the  Epistles. 

The  Acts  gives  us  the  external  history  of  the  apostolic  church ; 
the  Epistles  present  the  internal  life  of  the  same.  Both  mutu- 
ally supplement  and  confirm  each  other  by  a series  of  coinci- 
dences in  all  essential  points.  These  coincidences  are  all  the 
more  conclusive  as  they  are  undesigned  and  accompanied  by 
slight  discrepancies  in  minor  details.  Archdeacon  Paley  made 
them  the  subject  of  a discussion  in  his  Horae  Paulince,'  which 
will  retain  its  place  among  classical  monographs  alongside  of 

1 First  published  in  1790,  and  often  since.  See  also  the  list  of  parallel  pas- 
sages in  Dr.  Plumptre’s  Com.  on  Acts,  pp.  x.  and  xi. 


730 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


James  Smith’s  Voyage  and  Shipwreck  of  St.  Paul.  Argu- 
ments such  as  are  furnished  in  these  two  books  are  sufficient  to 
silence  most  of  the  critical  objections  against  the  credibility  of 
Acts  for  readers  of  sound  common  sense  and  unbiased  judg- 
ment. There  is  not  the  slightest  trace  that  Luke  had  read 
any  of  the  thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul,  nor  that  Paul  had  read  a 
line  of  Acts.  The  writings  were  contemporaneous  and  inde- 
pendent, yet  animated  by  the  same  spirit.  Luke  omits,  it  is 
true,  Paul’s  journey  to  Arabia,  his  collision  with  Peter  at 
Antioch,  and  many  of  his  trials  and  persecutions ; but  he  did 
not  aim  at  a full  biography.  The  following  are  a few  exam- 
ples of  these  conspicuously  undesigned  coincidences  in  the 
chronological  order: 


Paul’s  C 

Comp.  Acts  chs.  9 ; 22  and  26 ; 
three  accounts  which  differ  only  in 
minor  details. 

Paul’s  Persecution  an 
Acts  9 : 23-25.  The  Jews  took 
counsel  together  to  kill  him  . . . 
but  his  disciples  took  him  by 
night,  and  let  him  down  through 
the  wall,  lowering  him  in  a basket. 


Paul’s  Visits 
9 : 26,  27.  And  when  he  was 
come  to  Jerusalem  . . . Barnabas 
took  him,  and  brought  him  to  the 
apostles. 

15  : 2.  They  appointed  that  Paul 
and  Barnabas,  and  certain  other  of 
them,  should  go  up  to  Jerusalem 
unto  the  apostles  and  elders  [to 
the  apostolic  conference  to  settle 
the  question  about  circumcision]. 


Gal.  1 : 15-17  ; 1 Cor.  15  : 8 ; 
1 Tim.  1 : 13-16. 

» Escape  at  Damascus. 

2 Cor.  11 : 32,  33.  In  Damascus 
the  governor  under  Aretas  the 
king  guarded  the  city  of  the  Da- 
mascenes, in  order  to  take  me ; 
and  through  a window  was  I let 
down  in  a basket  by  the  wall,  and 
escaped  his  hands. 

to  Jerusalem. 

Gal.  1 : 18.  Then  after  three 
years  [counting  from  his  conver- 
sion] I went  up  to  Jerusalem  to 
visit  Cephas,  and  tarried  with  him 
fifteen  days. 

Gal.  2 : 1.  Then  after  the  space 
of  fourteen  years  I went  up  again 
to  Jerusalem  with  Barnabas,  taking 
Titus  also  with  me.  And  I went  up 
by  revelation.  [This  inner  motive 
does,  of  course,  not  exclude  the 
church  appointment  ment  ioned  by 
Luke.] 


§ 85.  TIIE  ACTS  OF  TIIE  APOSTLES, 


731 


Paul  Left  at  Athens  Alone. 


17  : 16.  Now  while  Paul  waited 
for  them  [Silas  and  Timothy]  at 
Athens. 


1 Thess.  3 : 1.  We  thought  it 
good  to  be  left  behind  at  Athena 
alone ; and  sent  Timothy,  etc. 
Comp.  ver.  7. 


Paul  Working 

18:3.  And  because  he  [Aquila] 
was  of  the  same  trade,  he  abode 
with  them,  and  they  wrought ; for 
by  their  trade  they  were  tent  mak- 
ers. Comp.  20 : 34. 


at  ms  Trade. 

1 Thess.  2:9.  Ye  remember, 
brethren,  our  labor  and  travail  : 
working  night  and  day,  that  we 
might  not  burden  any  of  you. 
Comp.  1 Cor.  4 : 11,  12. 


Paul’s  Two  Visits  to  Corinth. 

18:1;  20:2.  | 1 Cor.  2 : 1 ; 4 : 19 ; 16  : 5. 

Work  of  Apollos  at  Corinth. 

18:27,28.  | 1 Cor.  1 : 12;  3 : 6. 


Paul  Becoming  a Jew  to  the  Jews. 

16:3;  18:18;  21:23-26.  | lCor.9:20. 

Baptism  of  Crispus  and  Gaius. 

18:8.  | 1 Cor.  1 : 14-17. 


Collection  for  the  Poor  Brethren. 

18  : 23.  | 1 Cor.  16  : 1. 

Paul’s  Last  Journey  to  Jerusalem. 

20  : 6 ; 24  : 17.  | Rom.  15  : 25,  26. 

His  Desire  to  Visit  Rome. 

19:21.  | Rom.  1:13;  15:23. 

Paul  an  Ambassador  in  Bonds. 

28  : 16-20.  | Eph.  6 : 19,  2a 

The  Acts  and  Secular  History. 

The  Acts  brings  Christianity  in  contact  with  the  surrounding 
world  and  makes  many  allusions  to  various  places,  secular  per- 
sons and  events,  though  only  incidentally  and  as  far  as  its 
object  required  it.  These  allusions  are — with  a single  excep- 
tion, that  of  Theudas — in  full  harmony  with  the  history  of  the 


732 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


age  as  known  from  Josephus  and  heathen  writers,  and  establish 
Luke’s  claim  to  be  considered  a well-informed,  honest,  and 
credible  historian.  Bishop  Liglitfoot  asserts  that  no  ancient 
work  affords  so  many  tests  of  veracity,  because  no  other  has 
such  numerous  points  of  contact  in  all  directions  with  contem- 
porary history,  politics,  and  typography,  whether  Jewish  or 
Greek  or  Homan.  The  description  of  persons  introduced  in 
the  Acts,  such  as  Gamaliel,  Herod,  Agrippa  I.,  Bernice,  Felix, 
Festus,  Gallio,  agrees  as  far  as  it  goes  entirely  with  what  we 
know  from  contemporary  sources.  The  allusions  to  countries, 
cities,  islands,  in  Syria,  Asia  Minor,  Greece,  and  Italy  are  with- 
out exception  correct  and  reveal  an  experienced  traveller.  We 
mention  the  chief  points,  some  of  which  are  crucial  tests. 

1.  The  rebellion  of  Theudas,  5 : 36,  alluded  to  in  the  speech 
of  Gamaliel,  which  was  delivered  about  a.d.  33.  Here  is,  ap- 
parently, a conflict  with  Josephus,  who  places  this  event  in  the 
reign  of  Claudius,  and  under  the  procuratorship  of  Cuspius 
Fadus,  a.d.  44,  ten  or  twelve  years  after  Gamaliel’s  speech.1 
But  he  mentions  no  less  than  three  insurrections  which  took 
place  shortly  after  the  death  of  Herod  the  Great,  one  under 
the  lead  of  Judas  (who  may  have  been  Theudas  or  Thaddseus, 
the  two  names  being  interchangeable,  comp.  Matt.  10  : 3 ; Luke 
6 : 16),  and  he  adds  that  besides  these  there  were  many  high- 
way robbers  and  murderers  who  pretended  to  the  name  of  king.2 
At  all  events,  we  should  hesitate  to  charge  Luke  with  an  anachro- 
nism. He  was  as  well  informed  as  Josephus,  and  more  credible. 
This  is  the  only  case  of  a conflict  between  the  two,  except  the 
case  of  the  census  in  Luke  2 : 2,  and  here  the  discovery  of  a 
double  governorship  of  Quirinius  has  brought  the  chronological 
difficulty  within  the  reach  of  solution.3 

2.  The  rebellion  of  Judas  of  Galilee,  mentioned  in  the  same 
speech,  5 : 37,  as  having  occurred  in  the  days  of  the  enrolment 
(the  census  of  Quirinius),  is  confirmed  by  Josephus.4  The  in- 

1 Ant.  XX.  5,  § 1.  2 Ant.  XVII.  10.  3 See  above,  p.  122. 

4 Ant.  XVIII.  1 ; XX.  5,  § 2 ; War,  II.  8,  § 1.  In  the  first  passage  Jose- 

phus calls  Judas  a Gaulonite  (i.d.,  from  the  couuory  east  of  Galilee),  but  in 


§ 85.  THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 


733 


surrection  of  this  Judas  was  the  most  vigorous  attempt  to  throw 
off  the  Roman  joke  before  the  great  war. 

3.  Candace,  Queen  of  the  Ethiopians,  8 : 27.  Strabo  men- 
tions a queen  of  Meroe  in  Ethiopia,  under  that  name,  which 
was  probably,  like  Pharaoh,  a dynastic  title.1 

4.  The  famine  under  Claudius,  11  : 28.  This  reign  (a.d.  41- 
54)  was  disturbed  by  frequent  famines,  one  of  which,  according 
to  Josephus,  severely  affected  Judaea  and  Syria,  and  caused  great 
distress  in  Jerusalem,  under  the  procuratorship  of  Cuspius 
Fadus,  a.d.  45. a 

5.  The  death  of  King  Herod  Agrippa  I.  (grandson  of  Herod 
the  Great),  12  : 20-23.  Josephus  says  nothing  about  the  pre- 
ceding persecution  of  the  church,  but  reports  in  substantial 
agreement  with  Luke  that  the  king  died  of  a loathsome  disease 
in  the  seventh  year  of  his  reign  (a.d.  44),  five  days  after  he  had 
received,  at  the  theatre  of  Caesarea,  divine  honors,  being  hailed, 
in  heathen  fashion,  as  a god  by  his  courtiers.’ 

6.  The  proconsular  (as  distinct  from  the  propraetorian)  status 
of  Cyprus,  under  Sergius  Paulus,  13  : 7 (<tvv  tm  clv^vticltm 
2epylco  IlavXw).  Here  Luke  was  for  a long  time  considered 
inaccurate,  even  by  Grotius,  but  has  been  strikingly  confirmed 
by  modern  research.  When  Augustus  assumed  the  supreme 
power  (b.c.  27),  he  divided  the  government  of  the  provinces 
with  the  Senate,  and  called  the  ruler  of  the  imperatorial  prov- 
inces, which  needed  direct  military  control  under  the  emperor 
as  commander  of  the  legions,  propraetor  (dvTLaTpdrTjyos)  or 
legate  (7rpea/3vT7j<:\  the  ruler  of  a senatorial  province,  proconsul 
(av$vTraTo<$).  Formerly  these  terms  had  signified  that  the 
holder  of  the  office  had  previously  been  praetor  ( crrpaTTjyo 9 or 
rjyeficov)  or  consul  (v7 raro?) ; now  they  signified  the  adminis- 
trative heads  of  the  provinces.  But  this  subdivision  underwent 
frequent  changes,  so  that  only  a well-informed  person  could  tell 

the  other  passage  he  is  described  as  a Galilaean.  He  may  have  been  a native 
of  Gaulonitis  and  a resident  of  Galilee. 

1 Strabo,  XVII.,  p.  820  ; comp.  Pliny  IV.  35;  Dion  Cass.,  LIV.  5. 

3 Josephus,  Ant.  XX.  5 ; comp.  Tacitus,  Ann.  XII.  43;  Sueton  , Claud.  28. 

3 Ant.  XVIII.  8. 


734 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


the  distinction  at  any  time.  Cyprus  was  in  the  original  distri- 
bution (b.c.  27)  assigned  to  the  emperor,1  but  since  b.c.  22,  and 
at  the  time  of  Paul’s  visit  under  Claudius,  it  was  a senatorial 
province  ; 8 and  hence  Sergius  Paulus  is  rightly  called  proconsul. 
Coins  have  been  found  from  the  reign  of  Claudius  which  con- 
firm this  statement.3  Yea,  the  very  name  of  (Sergius)  Paulus 
has  been  discovered  by  General  di  Cesnola  at  Soli  (which,  next 
to  Salamis,  was  the  most  important  city  of  the  island),  in  a 
mutilated  inscription,  which  reads:  “in  the  proconsulship  of 
Paulus.” 4 * Under  Hadrian  the  island  was  governed  by  a pro- 
praetor ; under  Severus,  again  by  a proconsul. 

7.  The  proconsular  status  of  Acliaia  under  Gallio,  ch.  18:12 
(TaXk&ovos  duBvirdrov  ovros  tt)s  'Ayalas).  Acliaia,  which  in- 
cluded the  whole  of  Greece  lying  south  of  Macedonia,  was 
originally  a senatorial  province,  then  an  imperatorial  province 
under  Tiberius,  and  again  a senatorial  province  under  Claudius.6 
In  the  year  53-54,  when  Paul  was  at  Corinth,  M.  Annseus 
Hovatus  Gallio,  the  brother  of  the  philosopher  L.  Annaeus  Sen- 
eca, was  proconsul  of  Achaia,  and  popularly  esteemed  for  his 
mild  temper  as  “ dulcis  Gallio .” 

8.  Paul  and  Barnabas  mistaken  for  Zeus  and  Hermes  in 
Lycaonia,  14:11.  According  to  the  myth  described  by  Ovid," 
the  gods  Jupiter  and  Mercury  (Zeus  and  Hermes)  had  appeared 

1 Strabo,  XIV.,  at  the  close.  2 Dio  Cassius,  LIII.  12. 

3 Akerman,  Numismatic  Illustrations , pp.  39-42. 

4 TUN  Em  • nATAOT  • [AN 0] Tn ATOT.  See  Louis  Palma  di  Cesnola’s 

Cyprus : Its  Ancient  Cities , Tombs , and  Temples , New  York,  1878,  p.  424  sq. 

He  says  : “ The  Proconsul  Paulus  may  be  the  Sergius  Paulus  of  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  (ch.  13),  as  instances  of  the  suppression  of  one  or  two  names  are 
not  rare.”  Bishop  Lightfoot  (“  Cont.  Review  ” for  1876,  p.  290  sq.)  satisfac- 
torily accounts  for  the  omission  of  Sergius,  and  identifies  also  the  name 
Sergius  Paulus  from  the  elder  Pliny,  who  mentions  him  twice  as  a Latin 
author  in  the  first  book  of  his  Natural  History , and  as  his  chief  authority  for 
the  facts  in  the  second  and  eighteenth  books,  two  of  these  facts  being  espe- 
cially connected  with  Cyprus.  The  Consul  L.  Sergius  Paulus,  whom  Galen 
the  physician  met  at  Rome  A.D.  151,  and  whom  he  mentions  repeatedly,  first 
under  his  full  name  and  then  simply  as  Paulus,  may  have  been  a descendant 
of  the  convert  of  the  apostle. 

6 Tacitus,  Ann.  I.  76  ; Sueton.,  Claudius , c.  25.  6 Metam. , VIII.  625-724, 


§ 85.  TIIE  ACTS  OF  TIIE  APOSTLES. 


735 


to  the  Lycaonians  in  the  likeness  of  men,  and  been  received  by 
Baucis  and  Philemon,  to  whom  they  left  tokens  of  that  favor. 
The  place  where  they  had  dwelt  was  visited  by  devout  pilgrims 
and  adorned  with  votive  offerings.  How  natural,  therefore, 
was  it  for  these  idolaters,  astonished  by  the  miracle,  to  mistake 
the  eloquent  Paul  for  Ilermes,  and  Barnabas  who  may  have 
been  of  a more  imposing  figure,  for  Zeus. 

9.  The  colonial  dignity  of  the  city  of  Philippi,  in  Macedonia, 
16:12  (“a  Roman  colony,”  /coXcovia;  comp.  ver.  21,  “being 
Homans  ”).  Augustus  had  sent  a colony  to  the  famous  battle- 
field where  Brutus  and  the  Republic  expired,  and  conferred  on 
the  place  new  importance  and  the  privileges  of  Italian  or  Ro- 
man citizenship  ( jus  Italicum).1 

10.  u Lydia,  a seller  of  purple,  of  the  city  of  Tliyatira,”  16  : 14. 
Thyatira  (now  Akhissar),  in  the  valley  of  Lycus  in  Asia  Minor, 
was  famous  for  its  dying  works,  especially  for  purple  or  crimson.’ 

11.  The  “politarchs”  of  Thessalonica,  17 : 6,  8. 3 This  was 
a very  rare  title  for  magistrates,  and  might  easily  be  confounded 
with  the  more  usual  designation  u jpGliarchs”  But  Luke’s  ac- 
curacy has  been  confirmed  by  an  inscription  still  legible  on  an 
archway  in  Thessalonica,  giving  the  names  of  seven  “ poli- 
tarchs  ” who  governed  before  the  visit  of  Paul.4 

12.  The  description  of  Athens,  the  Areopagus,  the  schools  of 
philosophy,  the  idle  curiosity  and  inquisitiveness  of  the  Athe- 
nians (mentioned  also  by  Demosthenes),  the  altar  of  an  un- 


1 Dion  Cass.,  LI.  4 ; Pliny,  Nat.  Hist.  IV.  11. 

5 Strabo,  XIII.  4,  § 14.  Inscriptions  found  in  the  place  attest  the  ex- 
istence of  a guild  of  purple-dealers,  with  which  Lydia  was  probably  con- 
nected. 

3 robs  iro\irdpxas , i.€. , robs  &pxovras  ruv  iro\irwv,  prcefectos  tivitatis,  the 
rulers  of  the  city.  Grimm  says : “ Usitatius  Gratis  erat,  ir  o \ l a p x o r.” 

4 The  Thessalonian  inscription  in  Greek  letters  is  given  by  Boeckh.  Leake, 
and  Howson  (in  Conybeare  and  Howson’s  Life  and  Lettei'S  of  St.  Paul , ch.  IX., 
large  Lond.  ed.,  I.  360).  Three  of  the  names  are  identical  with  those  of 
Paul’s  friends  in  that  region — Sopater  of  Beraea  (Acta  20  : 4),  Gaius  of  Mace- 
donia (19  : 29),  and  Secundus  of  Thessalonica  (20  ; 4).  I will  only  give  the 
first  line : 

IIOAEITAPXOTNTGN  SrUIIIATPOT  TOT  KAEO. 


736 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


known  God,  and  the  quotation  from  Aratus  or  Cleanthes,  in 
ch.  17,  are  fully  borne  out  by  classical  authorities.1 

13.  The  account  of  Ephesus  in  the  nineteenth  chapter  has  been 
verified  as  minutely  accurate  by  the  remarkable  discoveries  of 
John  T.  Wood,  made  between  1863  and  1874,  with  the  aid  of 
the  English  Government.  The  excessive  worship  of  Diana, 
“ the  great  goddess  of  Artemis,”  the  temple-warden,  the  theatre 
(capable  of  holding  twenty-five  thousand  people)  often  used  for 
public  assemblies,  the  distinct  officers  of  the  city,  the  Roman 
proconsul  (dv^v7raro<;),  the  recorder  or  “ town-clerk  ” (ypapipa- 
Teu?),  and  the  Asiarchs  (Aatap^aC)  or  presidents  of  the  games 
and  the  religious  ceremonials,  have  all  reappeared  in  ruins  and 
on  inscriptions,  which  may  now  be  studied  in  the  British  Mu- 
seum. “With  these  facts  in  view,”  says  Lightfoot,  “we  are 
justified  in  saying  that  ancient  literature  has  preserved  no  pic- 
ture of  the  Ephesus  of  imperial  times — the  Ephesus  which  has 
been  unearthed  by  the  sagacity  and  perseverance  of  Mr.  Wood 
— comparable  for  its  life-like  truthfulness  to  the  narrative  of 
St.  Paul’s  sojourn  there  in  the  Acts.”  3 

14.  The  voyage  and  shipwreck  of  Paul  in  ch.  27.  This 
chapter  contains  more  information  about  ancient  navigation 
than  any  work  of  Greek  or  Roman  literature,  and  betrays  the 
minute  accuracy  of  an  intelligent  eye-witness,  who,  though  not 
a professional  seaman,  was  very  familiar  with  nautical  terms 
from  close  observation.  He  uses  no  less  than  sixteen  technical 
terms,  some  of  them  rare,  to  describe  the  motion  and  manage- 
ment of  a ship,  and  all  of  them  most  appropriately  ; and  he  is 
strictly  correct  in  the  description  of  the  localities  at  Crete,  Sal- 

1 See  the  commentaries  on  Acts  17  : 16,  18,  21,  22,  23,  28.  The  singular 
&€<£  in  ver.  23  creates  some  difficulty  ; for  Pausanias  (I.  1-4)  mentions  “altars 
to  unknown  gods ” which  were  set  up  in  the  harbor  and  streets  of  Athens ; and 
Diogenes  Laertius  ( Epimen .,  c.  3)  speaks  of  “altars  without  name”  in  many 
parts  of  Athens.  It  is  supposed  that  Paul  meant  one  of  these  altars,  or  that 
he  ingeniously  adapted  the  polytheistic  inscription  to  hia  argument.  In  the 
dialogue  Philopatris , which  is  erroneously  ascribed  to  Lucian,  one  of  the 
speakers  swears  “by  the  unknown  god  of  Athens.” 

2 See  Wood  : Discoveries  at  Ephesus , and  Lightfoot’s  article  above  quoted, 
p.  295.  Lightfoot  aided  Mr.  Wood  in  explaining  the  inscriptions. 


§ 85.  TIIE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 


737 


mone,  Fair  Havens,  Cauda,  Lasea  and  Phoenix  (two  small  places 
recently  identified),  and  Melita  (Malta),  as  well  as  the  motions 
and  effects  of  the  tempestuous  northeast  wind  called  Euraquilo 
(A.  V.  Euroclydon)  in  the  Mediterranean.  All  this  has  been 
thoroughly  tested  by  an  expert  seaman  and  scholar,  James 
Smith,  of  Scotland,  who  has  published  the  results  of  his  ex- 
amination in  the  classical  monograph  already  mentioned.1 
Monumental  and  scientific  evidence  outweighs  critical  conjee- 
tures,  and  is  an  irresistible  vindication  of  the  historical  accuracy 
and  credibility  of  Luke. 

The  Acts  an  Ieenicum. 

But  some  critics  have  charged  the  Acts  with  an  intentional 
falsification  of  history  in  the  interest  of  peace  between  the 
Petrine  and  Pauline  sections  of  the  church.  The  work  is  said 
to  be  a Catholic  Irenicum,  based  probably  on  a narrative  of 
Luke,  but  not  completed  before  the  close  of  the  first  century, 
for  the  purpose  of  harmonizing  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  sections 
of  the  church  by  conforming  the  two  leading  apostles,  i.e.,  by 
raising  Peter  to  the  Pauline  and  lowering  Paul  to  the  Petrine 
plane,  and  thus  making  both  subservient  to  a compromise  be- 
tween Judaizing  bigotry  and  Gentile  freedom.2 

The  chief  arguments  on  which  this  hypothesis  is  based  are 
the  suppression  of  the  collision  between  Paul  and  Peter  at 
Antioch,  and  the  friendly  relation  into  which  Paul  is  brought 
to  James,  especially  at  the  last  interview.  The  fifteenth 
chapter  of  Acts  is  supposed  to  be  in  irreconcilable  conflict  with 
the  second  chapter  of  the  Galatians.  But  a reaction  has  taken 

1 Comp.  § 82,  p.  666,  and  my  Companion  to  the  Greek  Test.,  p.  61. 

a This  view  was  first  broached  by  Baur  (1836,  1838,  and  1845),  then  carried 
out  by  Schneckenburger  (1841),  more  fully  by  Zeller  (1854),  and  by  Hilgen- 
feld  (1872,  and  in  his  Einleitung , 1875).  Renan  also  presents  substantially 
the  same  view,  though  somewhat  modified.  kiLes  Actes  ” ( Les  Apotres , p.  xxix. ) 
“ 8ont  une  histoire  dogmatique,  arrangee  pour  a/ppuyer  les  doctrines  orthodoxes 
du  temps  ou  inculquer  les  idees  qui  souriaient  le  plus  d la  piete  de  V auteur”  He 
thinks,  it  could  not  be  otherwise,  as  we  know  the  history  of  religions  only  from 
the  reports  of  believers  ; “ U n'y  a que  le  sceptique  qui  ecrive  1' histoire  ad  nar« 
randum.” 


738 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


place  in  the  Tubingen  school,  and  it  is  admitted  now  by  some 
of  the  ablest  critics  that  the  antagonism  between  Paulinism 
and  Petrinism  has  been  greatly  exaggerated  by  Baur,  and  that 
Acts  is  a far  more  trustworthy  account  than  he  was  willing  to 
admit.  The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  itself  is  the  best  vindica- 
tion of  the  Acts,  for  it  expressly  speaks  of  a cordial  agreement 
between  Paul  and  the  Jewish  pillar-apostles.  As  to  the  omis- 
sion of  the  collision  between  Peter  and  Paul  at  Antioch,  it  was 
merely  a passing  incident,  perhaps  unknown  to  Luke,  or  omitted 
because  it  had  no  bearing  on  the  course  of  events  recorded  by 
him.  On  the  other  hand,  he  mentions  the  “ sharp  contention  ” 
between  Paul  and  Barnabas,  because  it  resulted  in  a division  of 
the  missionary  work,  Paul  and  Silas  going  to  Syria  and  Cilicia, 
Barnabas  and  Mark  sailing  away  to  Cyprus  (15  : 39-41).  Of 
this  Paul  says  nothing,  because  it  had  no  bearing  on  his  argu- 
ment with  the  Galatians.  Paul’s  conciliatory  course  toward 
James  and  the  Jews,  as  represented  in  the  Acts,  is  confirmed 
by  his  own  Epistles,  in  which  he  says  that  he  became  a Jew  to 
the  Jews,  as  well  as  a Gentile  to  the  Gentiles,  in  order  to  gain 
them  both,  and  expresses  his  readiness  to  make  the  greatest 
possible  sacrifice  for  the  salvation  of  his  brethren  after  the  flesh 
(1  Cor.  9:20;  Eom.  9 : 3). 

The  Truthfulness  of  the  Acts. 

The  book  of  Acts  is,  indeed,  like  every  impartial  history,  an 
Irenicum,  but  a truthful  Irenicum,  conceived  in  the  very  spirit 
of  the  Conference  at  Jerusalem  and  the  concordat  concluded  by 
the  leading  apostles,  according  to  Paul’s  own  testimony  in  the 
polemical  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  The  principle  of  selection 
required,  of  course,  the  omission  of  a large  number  of  facts  and 
incidents.  But  the  selection  was  made  with  fairness  and  jus- 
tice to  all  sides.  The  impartiality  and  truthfulness  of  Luke  is 
very  manifest  in  his  honest  record  of  the  imperfections  of  the 
apostolic  church.  He  does  not  conceal  the  hypocrisy  and  mean 
selfishness  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  which  threatened  to  poison 
Christianity  in  its  cradle  (5  : 1 sqq.) ; he  informs  us  that  the  in- 


§ 8G.  THE  EPISTLES. 


739 


stitution  of  the  diaconate  arose  from  a complaint  of  the  Grecian 
Jews  against  their  Hebrew  brethren  for  neglecting  their  widows 
in  the  daily  ministration  (6  : 1 sqq.) ; he  represents  Paul  and 
Barnabas  as  “men  of  like  passions”  with  other  men  (14  : 15), 
and  gives  us  some  specimens  of  weak  human  nature  in  Mark 
when  he  became  discouraged  by  the  hardship  of  missionary  life 
and  returned  to  his  mother  in  Jerusalem  (13  : 13),  and  in  Paul  and 
Barnabas  when  they  fell  out  for  a season  on  account  of  this  very 
Mark,  who  was  a cousin  of  Barnabas  (15  : 39) ; nor  does  he  pass 
in  silence  the  outburst  of  Paul’s  violent  temper  when  in  righte- 
ous indignation  he  called  the  high-priest  a “ whited  wall  ” (23 : 
3) ; and  he  speaks  of  serious  controversies  and  compromises  even 
among  the  apostles  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit — all 
for  our  humiliation  and  warning  as  well  as  comfort  and  encour- 
agement. 

Examine  and  compare  the  secular  historians  from  Herodotus 
to  Macaulay,  and  the  church  historians  from  Eusebius  to  Mean- 
der, and  Luke  need  not  fear  a comparison.  No  history  of  thirty 
years  has  ever  been  written  so  truthful  and  impartial,  so  impor- 
tant and  interesting,  so  healthy  in  tone  and  hopeful  in  spirit,  so 
aggressive  and  yet  so  genial,  so  cheering  and  inspiring,  so  re- 
plete with  lessons  of  wisdom  and  encouragement  for  work  in 
spreading  the  gospel  of  truth  and  peace,  and  yet  withal  so  sim- 
ple and  modest,  as  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  It  is  the  best  as 
well  as  the  first  manual  of  church  history. 


§ 86.  The  Ejpistles. 

The  sermons  of  Stephen  and  the  apostles  in  Acts  (except- 
ing the  farewell  of  Paul  to  the  Ephesian  Elders)  are  mission- 
ary addresses  to  outsiders,  with  a view  to  convert  them  to 
the  Christian  faith.  The  Epistles  are  addressed  to  baptized 
converts,  and  aim  to  strengthen  them  in  their  faith,  and,  by 
brotherly  instruction,  exhortation,  rebuke,  and  consolation,  to 
build  up  the  church  in  all  Christian  graces  on  the  historical 
foundation  of  the  teaching  and  example  of  Christ.  The 


740 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  delivered  divine  oracles  to  the 
people ; the  apostles  of  the  New  Testament  wrote  letters  to  the 
brethren,  who  shared  with  them  the  same  faith  and  hope  as 
members  of  Christ. 

The  readers  are  supposed  to  be  already  “ in  Christ,”  saved 
and  sanctified  “in  Christ,”  and  holding  all  their  social  and 
domestic  relations  and  discharging  their  duties  “in  Christ.” 
They  are  “ grown  together  ” 1 with  Christ,  sharing  in  his  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection,  and  destined  to  reign  and  rule  with 
him  in  glory  forever.  On  the  basis  of  this  new  relation,  con- 
stituted by  a creative  act  of  divine  grace,  and  sealed  by  bap- 
tism, they  are  warned  against  every  sin  and  exhorted  to  every 
virtue.  Every  departure  from  their  profession  and  calling  im- 
plies double  guilt  and  double  danger  of  final  ruin. 

Occasions  and  calls  for  correspondence  were  abundant,  and 
increased  with  the  spread  of  Christianity  over  the  Roman  em- 
pire. The  apostles  could  not  be  omnipresent,  and  had  to  send 
messengers  and  letters  to  distant  churches.  They  probably 
wrote  many  more  letters  than  we  possess,  although  we  have 
good  reason  to  suppose  that  the  most  important  and  perma- 
nently valuable  are  preserved.  A former  letter  of  Paul  to  the 
Corinthians  is  implied  in  1 Cor.  5 :*9 : “I  wrote  to  you  in  my 
epistle ; ” 2 and  traces  of  further  correspondence  are  found  in 
1 Cor.  16  : 3 ; 2 Cor.  10:9;  Eph.  3 : 3.  The  letter  “ from 
Laodicea,”  referred  to  in  Col.  4:16,  is  probably  the  encyclical 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians. 

The  Epistles  of  the  New  Testament  are  without  a parallel  in 
ancient  literature,  and  yield  in  importance  only  to  the  Gospels, 
which  stand  higher,  as  Christ  himself  rises  above  the  apostles. 
They  are  pastoral  letters  to  congregations  or  individuals,  begin- 
ning with  an  inscription  and  salutation,  consisting  of  doctrinal 
expositions  and  practical  exhortations  and  consolations,  and  con- 

1 c tvuQvtoi , Rom.  6:5;  not  “planted  together”  (as  in  the  A.  V.  and  the 
Vulgate)  ; the  word  being  derived  from  <pvoo , to  cause  to  grow,  not  from 
<pvTev(i>,  to  plant* 

2 The  so-called  Epistle  of  the  Corinthians  to  Paul  and  his  answer,  preserved 
in  Armenian,  are  spurious  and  worthless. 


§ 87.  TIIE  CATHOLIC  EPISTLES. 


741 


eluding  with  personal  intelligence,  greetings,  and  benediction. 
They  presuppose  throughout  the  Gospel  history,  and  often 
allude  to  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ  as  the  foundation 
of  the  church  and  the  Christian  hope.  They  were  composed 
amidst  incessant  missionary  labors  and  cares,  under  trial  and 
persecution,  some  of  them  from  prison,  and  yet  they  abound  in 
joy  and  thanksgiving.  They  were  mostly  called  forth  by  special 
emergencies,  yet  they  suit  all  occasions.  Tracts  for  the  times, 
they  are  tracts  for  all  times.  Children  of  the  fleeting  moment, 
they  contain  truths  of  infinite  moment.  They  compress  more 
ideas  in  fewer  words  than  any  other  writings,  human  or  divine, 
excepting  the  Gospels.  They  discuss  the  highest  themes  which 
can  challenge  an  immortal  mind — God,  Christ,  and  the  Spirit, 
sin  and  redemption,  incarnation,  atonement,  regeneration,  re- 
pentance, faith  and  good  works,  holy  living  and  dying,  the  con- 
version of  the  world,  the  general  judgment,  eternal  glory  and 
bliss.  And  all  this  before  humble  little  societies  of  poor,  un- 
cultured artisans,  freedmen  and  slaves ! And  yet  they  are  of 
more  real  and  general  value  to  the  church  than  all  the  systems 
of  theology  from  Origen  to  Sclileiermacher — yea,  than  all  the 
confessions  of  faith.  For  eighteen  hundred  years  they  have 
nourished  the  faith  of  Christendom,  and  will  continue  to  do  so 
to  the  end  of  time.  This  is  the  best  evidence  of  their  divine 
inspiration. 

The  Epistles  are  divided  into  two  groups,  Catholic  and  Paul- 
ine. The  first  is  more  general ; the  second  bears  the  strong 
imprint  of  the  intense  personality  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gen- 
tiles. 


§ 87.  The  Catholic  Epistles. 

I.  Stork:  Be  Catholicarum  Epp.  Occasione  et  Consilio.  Tiib.  1789. 

St^eudlin  *.  Be  Fontibus  Epp.  Gath.  Gott.  1790.  J.  D.  ScHuiiZE : 
Ber  schriftstellerische  Charakter  und  Werth  des  Petrus,  Jacobus  und 
Judas.  Leipz.  1802.  Ber  schriftsteller.  Ch.  des  Johannes.  1803. 

II.  Commentaries  on  all  the  Catholic  Epistles  by  Goepfert  (1780), 
Schlegel  (1783),  Carpzov  (1790),  Augusti  (1801),  Grashof  (1830), 
Jachmann  (1838),  Sumner  (1840),  De  Wette  (3d  ed.  by  Bruckner. 


742 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


1865),  Meyer  (the  Cath.  Epp.  by  Huther,  Dusterdieok,  Beyschlag), 
Lange  (Eng.  transl.  with  additions  by  Mombert,  1872),  John  T. 
Demarest  (N.  York,  1879) ; also  the  relevant  parts  in  the  “ Speak- 
er’s Com.,”  in  Ellicott’s  Com.,  the  Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools  (ed. 
by  Dean  Perowne),  and  in  the  International  Revision  Com.  (ed.  by 
Schaff),  etc.  P.  I.  Gloag  : Introduction  to  the  Catholic  Epp., 
Edinb.,  1887. 

The  seven  Epistles  of  James,  1st  and  2d  Peter,  1st,  2d,  and  3d 
John,  and  Jude  usually  follow  in  the  old  manuscripts  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  and  precede  the  Pauline  Epistles,  perhaps  as 
being  the  works  of  the  older  apostles,  and  representing,  in  part 
at  least,  the  Jewish  type  of  Christianity.  They  are  of  a more 
general  character,  and  addressed  not  to  individuals  or  single 
congregations,  as  those  of  Paul,  but  to  a larger  number  of  Chris- 
tians scattered  through  a district  or  over  the  world.  Ilence 
they  are  called,  from  the  time  of  Origen  and  Eusebius,  Catholic. 
This  does  not  mean  in  this  connection  anti-heretical  (still  less,  of 
course,  Greek  Catholic  or  Poman  Catholic),  but  encyclical  or 
circular.  The  designation,  however,  is  not  strictly  correct,  and 
applies  only  to  five  of  them.  The  second  and  third  Epistles  of 
John  are  addressed  to  individuals.  On  the  other  hand  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  encyclical,  and  ought  to  be  numbered 
with  the  Catholic  Epistles,  but  is  usually  appended  to  those  of 
Paul.  The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  is  likewise  intended  for 
more  than  one  congregation.  The  first  Christian  document  of 
an  encyclical  character  is  the  pastoral  letter  of  the  apostolic  Con- 
ference at  Jerusalem  (a.d.  50)  to  the  Gentile  brethren  in  Syria 
and  Cilicia  (Acts  15  : 23-29). 1 

The  Catholic  Epistles  are  distinct  from  the  Pauline  by  their 
more  general  contents  and  the  absence  of  personal  and  local 
references.  They  represent  different,  though  essentially  har- 
monious, types  of  doctrine  and  Christian  life.  The  individu- 
ality of  James,  Peter,  and  John  stand  out  very  prominently 
in  these  brief  remains  of  their  correspondence.  They  do  not 
enter  into  theological  discussions  like  those  of  Paul,  the  learned 


1 Hence  Origen  calls  it  an  iirurroXh  koSoKikI). 


§ 87.  TIIE  CATHOLIC  EPISTLES. 


743 


Itabbi,  and  give  simpler  statements  of  truth,  but  protest  against 
the  rising  ascetic  and  Antinomian  errors,  as  Paul  does  in  the 
Colossians  and  Pastoral  Epistles.  Each  has  a distinct  character 
and  purpose,  and  none  could  well  be  spared  from  the  New  Tes- 
tament without  marring  the  beauty  and  completeness  of  the 
whole. 

The  time  of  composition  cannot  be  fixed  with  certainty,  but 
is  probably  as  follows  : James  before  a.d.  50 ; 1st  Peter  (probably 
also  2d  Peter  and  Jude)  before  a.d.  67  ; John  between  a.d.  80 
and  100. 

Only  two  of  these  Epistles,  the  1st  of  Peter  and  the  1st 
of  John,  belong  to  the  Eusebian  Hovnologumena , which  were 
universally  accepted  by  the  ancient  church  as  inspired  and  can- 
onical. About  the  other  five  there  was  more  or  less  doubt  as  to 
their  origin  down  to  the  close  of  the  fourth  century,  when  all 
controversy  on  the  extent  of  the  canon  went  to  sleep  till  the 
time  of  the  Reformation.  Yet  they  bear  the  general  imprint 
of  the  apostolic  age,  and  the  absence  of  stronger  traditional 
evidence  is  due  in  part  to  their  small  size  and  limited  use. 

James. 

Comp,  on  the  lit.,  biography,  and  doctrine  of  James,  §§  27  and  69. 

The  Epistle  of  James  the  Brother  of  the  Lord  was  written, 
no  doubt,  from  Jerusalem,  the  metropolis  of  the  ancient  theo- 
cracy and  Jewish  Christianity,  where  the  author  labored  and 
died  a martyr  at  the  head  of  the  mother  church  of  Christen- 
dom and  as  the  last  connecting  link  between  the  old  and  the 
new  dispensation.  It  is  addressed  to  the  Jews  and  Jewish 
Christians  of  the  dispersion  before  the  final  doom  in  the 
year  70. 

It  strongly  resembles  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  and  echoes  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  in  the  fresh,  vigorous,  pithy,  proverbial, 
and  sententious  style  of  oriental  wisdom.  It  exhorts  the  read- 
ers to  good  works  of  faith,  warns  them  against  dead  orthodoxy, 
covetousness,  pride,  and  world li  ness,  and  comforts  them  in  view 
of  present  and  future  trials  and  persecutions.  It  is  eminently 


744 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


practical  and  free  from  subtle  theological  questions.  It  preaches 
a religion  of  good  works  which  commends  itself  to  the  approval 
of  God  and  all  good  men.  It  represents  the  primary  stage  of 
Christian  doctrine.  It  takes  no  notice  of  the  circumcision  con- 
troversy, the  Jerusalem  compromise,  and  the  later  conflicts  of 
the  apostolic  age.  Its  doctrine  of  justification  is  no  protest 
against  that  of  Paul,  but  prior  to  it,  and  presents  the  subject 
from  a less  developed,  yet  eminently  practical  aspect,  and  against 
the  error  of  a barren  monotheism  rather  than  Pharisaical  legal- 
ism, which  Paul  had  in  view.  It  is  probably  the  oldest  of  the 
New  Testament  books,  meagre  in  doctrine,  but  rich  in  comfort 
and  lessons  of  holy  living  based  on  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  “ the 
Lord  of  glory.”  It  contains  more  reminiscences  of  the  words 
of  Christ  than  any  other  epistle.1  Its  leading  idea  is  “ the  per- 
fect law  of  freedom,”  or  the  law  of  love  revealed  in  Christ. 

Luther’s  harsh,  unjust,  and  unwise  judgment  of  this  Epistle 
has  been  condemned  by  his  own  church,  and  reveals  a defect  in 
his  conception  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  which  was  the 
natural  result  of  his  radical  war  with  the  Romish  error. 

Peter. 

See  on  the  lit. , biography,  and  theology  of  Peter,  §§  25,  26,  and  70. 

The  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  dated  from  Babylon,2  belongs  to 
the  later  life  of  the  apostle,  when  his  ardent  natural  temper  was 

1 Reuss  ( Gesch . d.  heil.  Schriften  JV.  Testaments , 5th  ed.,  I.  138):  “ That- 
sache  ist , dass  die  Ep.  Jacobi  fur  sich  allein  mehr  wortliche  Reminiscenzen  aits 
den  Reden  Jesu  enthdlt  als  alle  ubrigen  apost.  Schriften  zusammen.  . . . 

lnsofern  dieselben  offenbar  nicht  aus  schriftlichen  Quetten  geflossen  sind,  mogen 
sie  mit  das  holier e Alter  des  Briefs  verbiirgen."  Beyschlag  (in  the  new  ed. 
of  Huther  in  Meyer,  1881)  and  Erdmann  (1881),  the  most  recent  commenta- 
tors of  James,  agree  with  Schneckenburger,  Neander,  and  Thiersch  in  assign- 
ing the  Epistle  to  the  earliest  date  of  Christian  literature,  against  the  Tubingen 
school,  which  makes  it  a polemical  treatise  against  Paul.  Reuss  occupies  a 
middle  position.  The  undeveloped  state  of  Christian  doctrine,  the  use  of 
ffvvayccyi)  for  a Christian  assembly  (2  : 2),  the  waut  of  a clear  distinction  be- 
tween Jews  and  Jewish  Christians,  who  are  addressed  as  “the  twelve  tribes,” 
and  the  expectation  of  the  approaching  parousia  (5  : 8),  concur  as  signs  of  the 
high  antiquity. 

a Commentators  are  divided  on  the  meaning  of  Babylon,  5 : 13,  whether  it 
be  the  mystic  Babylon  of  the  Apocalypse,  i.  e. , heathen  Rome,  as  a persecuting 


§ 87.  THE  CATHOLIC  EPISTLES. 


745 


deeply  humbled,  softened,  and  sanctified  by  the  work  of  grace. 
It  was  written  to  churches  in  several  provinces  of  Asia  Minor, 
composed  of  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians  together,  and  planted 
mainly  by  Paul  and  his  fellow-laborers ; and  was  sent  by  the 
hands  of  Silvanus,  a former  companion  of  Paul.  It  consists  of 
precious  consolations,  and  exhortations  to  a holy  walk  after  the 
example  of  Christ,  to  joyful  hope  of  the  heavenly  inheritance,  to 
patience  under  the  persecutions  already  raging  or  impending. 
It  gives  us  the  fruit  of  a rich  spiritual  experience,  and  is 
altogether  worthy  of  Peter  and  his  mission  to  tend  the  flock  of 
God  under  Christ,  the  chief  shepherd  of  souls.1 

It  attests  also  the  essential  agreement  of  Peter  with  the  doc- 
trine  of  the  Gentile  apostle,  in  which  the  readers  had  been  before 
instructed  (5  : 12).  This  accords  with  the  principle  of  Peter 
professed  at  the  Council  in  Jerusalem  (Acts  15  : 11)  that  we 
are  saved  without  the  yoke  of  the  law,  “through  the  grace  of 
the  Lord  Jesus.”  His  doctrinal  system,  however,  precedes  that 

power  (the  fathers,  Roman  Catholic  divines,  also  Thiersch,  Baur,  Renan),  or 
Babylon  on  the  Euphrates,  or  Babylon  in  Egypt  (old  Cairo).  The  question  is 
connected  with  Peter’s  presence  in  Rome,  which  has  been  discussed  in  § 26. 
On  the  date  of  composition  commentators  are  likewise  divided,  as  they  differ 
in  their  views  on  the  relation  of  Peter’s  Epistle  to  Romans,  Ephesians,  and 
James,  and  on  the  character  of  the  persecution  alluded  to  in  the  Epistle. 
Weiss,  who  denies  that  Peter  used  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  dates  it  back  as  far  as 
54;  the  Tubingen  critics  bring  it  down  to  the  age  of  Trajan  (Volkmar  even 
to  140 !),  but  most  critics  assign  it  to  the  time  between  63  and  67,  Renan  to  63, 
shortly  before  the  Neronian  persecution.  For  once  I agree  with  him.  See 
Huther  (in  the  Meyer  series),  4th  ed.,  pp.  30  sqq. ; Weiss,  Die  Petrinische 
Frage  (1865) ; Renan,  IS Antechrist,  p.  vi  and  110;  and,  on  the  part  of  the 
Tubingen  school,  Pfleiderer,  Paulinismus , pp.  417 sqq.;  Hilgenfeld,  Einleitung , 
pp.  625  sqq.;  Holtzmann,  Einleitung , pp.  514  sqq.  (2d  ed.). 

1 “ This  excellent  Epistle,”  says  Archbishop  Leighton,  whose  Practical  Com- 
mentary upon  the  First  Epistle  General  of  St.  Peter  is  still  unsurpassed  for 
spirituality  and  unction,  “is  a brief  and  yet  very  clear  summary  both  of  the 
consolations  and  instructions  needful  for  the  encouragement  and  direction  of 
a Christian  in  his  journey  to  heaven,  elevating  his  thoughts  and  desires  to  that 
happiness,  and  strengthening  him  against  all  opposition  in  the  way,  both  that 
of  corruption  within  and  temptations  and  afflictions  from  without.”  Bengel : 
“ MiraMlis  est  grmitas  et  alacritas  Petrini  sermonis , lector em  suavissime  re- 
tine,ns.”  Alford  : “There  is  no  Epistle  in  the  sacred  canon,  the  language  and 
spirit  of  which  come  more  directly  home  to  the  personal  trials  and  wants  and 
weaknesses  of  the  Christian  life.” 


740 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


of  Paul  and  is  independent  of  it,  standing  between  James  and 
Paul.  Peculiar  to  him  is  the  doctrine  of  the  descent  of  Christ 
into  Hades  (3:18;  4:6;  comp.  Acts  2 : 32),  which  contains 
the  important  truth  of  the  universal  intent  of  the  atonement 
Christ  died  for  all  men,  for  those  who  lived  before  as  well  as 
after  his  coming,  and  he  revealed  himself  to  the  spirits  in  the 
realm  of  Hades.  Peter  also  warns  against  hierarchical  ambi- 
tion in  prophetic  anticipation  of  the  abuse  of  his  name  and  his 
primacy  among  the  apostles. 

The  Second  Epistle  of  Peter  is  addressed,  shortly  before  the 
author’s  death,  as  a sort  of  last  will  and  testament,  to  the  same 
churches  as  the  first.  It  contains  a renewed  assurance  of  his 
agreement  with  his  “ beloved  brother  Paul,”  to  whose  Epistles 
he  respectfully  refers,  yet  with  the  significant  remark  (true  in 
itself,  yet  often  abused  by  Romanists)  that  there  are  in  them 
“ some  things  hard  to  be  understood  ” (3  : 15,  16).  As  Peter 
himself  receives  in  one  of  these  Epistles  (Gal.  2 : 11)  a sharp 
rebuke  for  his  inconsistency  at  Antioch  (which  may  be  included 
in  the  hard  things),  this  affectionate  allusion  proves  how 
thoroughly  the  Spirit  of  Christ  had,  through  experience,  trained 
him  to  humility,  meekness,  and  self-denial.  The  Epistle  exhorts 
the  readers  to  diligence,  virtue,  temperance,  patience,  godliness, 
brotherly  love,  and  brotherly  kindness ; refers  to  the  Transfigu- 
ration on  the  Mount,  where  the  author  witnessed  the  majesty  of 
Christ,  and  to  the  prophetic  word  inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit ; 
warns  against  antinomian  errors  ; corrects  a mistake  concerning 
the  second  coming ; exhorts  them  to  prepare  for  the  day  of  the 
Lord  by  holy  living,  looking  for  new  heavens  and  a new  earth 
wherein  dwelleth  righteousness;  and  closes  with  the  words: 
“ Grow  in  the  grace  and  knowledge  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  be  glory  both  now  and  forever.” 

The  second  Epistle  is  reckoned  by  Eusebius  among  the  seven 
Antilegomenay  and  its  Petrine  authorship  is  doubted  or  denied, 
in  whole  or  in  part,  by  many  eminent  divines,1  but  defended  by 

1 Erasmus,  Calvin,  Grotius,  Neander,  De  Wette,  Hutber,  and  all  the  Tubin- 
gen critics. 


§ 87.  THE  CATHOLIC  EPISTLES. 


747 


competent  critics.1  The  chief  objections  are : the  want  of  early 
attestation,  the  reference  to  a collection  of  the  Pauline  Epistles, 
the  polemic  against  Gnostic  errors,  some  peculiarities  of  style, 
and  especially  the  apparent  dependence  of  the  second  chapter 
on  the  Epistle  of  Jude. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Epistle,  at  least  the  first  and  third  chap- 
ters, contains  nothing  which  Peter  might  not  have  written,  and 
the  allusion  to  the  scene  of  transfiguration  admits  only  the  alter- 
native : either  Peter,  or  a forger.  It  seems  morally  impossible 
that  a forger  should  have  produced  a letter  so  full  of  spiritual 
beauty  and  unction,  and  expressly  denouncing  all  cunning  fab- 
rications. It  may  have  been  enlarged  by  the  editor  after  Peter’s 
death.  But  the  whole  breathes  an  apostolic  spirit,  and  could 
not  well  be  spared  from  the  New  Testament.  It  is  a worthy 
valedictory  of  the  aged  apostle  awaiting  his  martyrdom,  and 
with  its  still  valid  warnings  against  internal  dangers  from  false 
Christianity,  it  forms  a suitable  complement  to  the  first  Epistle, 
which  comforts  the  Christians  amidst  external  dangers  from 
heathen  and  Jewish  persecutors. 


Jude. 

The  Epistle  of  Jude,  a “ brother  of  James  ” (the  Just),*  is 
very  short,  anj  strongly  resembles  the  second  chapter  of  the 
second  Epistle  of  Peter,  but  differs  from  it  by  an  allusion  to  the 
remarkable  apocryphal  book  of  Enoch  and  the  legend  of  the 
dispute  of  Michael  with  the  devil  about  the  body  of  Moses.  It 
seems  to  be  addressed  to  the  same  churches  and  directed  against 
the  same  Gnostic  heretics.  It  is  a solemn  warning  against  the 
antinomian  and  licentious  tendencies  which  revealed  themselves 
between  a.d.  60  and  70.  Origen  remarks  that  it  is  “of  few 

1 Weiss,  Thiersch,  Fronmiiller,  Alford,  and  especially  Fr.  Spitta  in  his  Der 
Zweite  Brief  des  Petrus  und  der  Brief  des  Judas  (Halle,  1885,  544  pages). 

2 Clement  of  Alexandria,  Origen  (in  Greek),  and  Epiphanius  distinguish  him 
from  the  Apostles.  He  is  mentioned  with  James  as  one  of  the  brothers  of 
Jesus,  Matt.  13  : 55 ; Mark  6 : 3.  Comp,  on  this  whole  question  the  discus* 
sion  in  § 27. 


748 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


lines,  but  rich  in  words  of  heavenly  wisdom.”  The  style  is 
fresh  and  vigorous. 

The  Epistle  of  Jude  belongs  likewise  to  the  Eusebian  Anti - 
legomena , and  has  signs  of  post-apostolic  origin,  yet  may  have 
been  written  by  Jude,  who  was  not  one  of  the  Twelve,  though 
closely  connected  with  apostolic  circles.  A forger  would  hardly 
have  written  under  the  name  of  a “brother  of  James”  rather 
than  a brother  of  Christ  or  an  apostle. 

The  time  and  place  of  composition  are  unknown.  The  Tubin- 
gen critics  put  it  down  to  the  reign  of  Trajan ; Renan,  on  the 
contrary,  as  far  back  as  54,  wrongly  supposing  it  to  have  been 
intended,  together  with  the  Epistle  of  James,  as  a counter- 
manifesto against  Paul’s  doctrine  of  free  grace.  But  Paul  con- 
demned antinomianism  as  severely  as  James  and  Jude  (comp. 
Rom.  6,  and  in  fact  all  his  Epistles).  It  is  safest  to  say,  with 
Bleek,  that  it  was  written  shortly  before  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  which  is  not  alluded  to  (comp.  vers.  14,  15). 

The  Epistles  of  John. 

Comp.  §§  40-43,  83  and  84. 

The  First  Epistle  of  John  betrays  throughout,  in  thought 
and  style,  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  It  is  a postscript  to 
it,  or  a practical  application  of  the  lessons  of  the  life  of  Christ 
to  the  wants  of  the  church  at  the  close  of  the  first  century.  It 
is  a circular  letter  of  the  venerable  apostle  to  his  beloved  chil- 
dren in  Asia  Minor,  exhorting  them  to  a holy  life  of  faith  and 
love  in  Christ,  and  earnestly  warning  them  against  the  Gnostic 
“ antichrists,”  already  existing  or  to  come,  who  deny  the  mys- 
tery of  the  incarnation,  sunder  religion  from  morality,  and  run 
into  Antinomian  practices. 

The  Second  and  Third  Epistles  of  John  are,  like  the  Epistle 
of  Paul  to  Philemon,  short  private  letters,  one  to  a Christian 
woman  by  the  name  of  Cyria,  the  other  to  one  Gaius,  probably  an 
officer  of  a congregation  in  Asia  Minor.  They  belong  to  the  seven 
Antilegomena , and  have  been  ascribed  by  some  to  the  “ Presby- 
ter John,”  a contemporary  of  the  apostle,  though  of  disputed 


§ 88.  THE  EPISTLES  OF  PAUL. 


749 


existence.  But  the  second  Epistle  resembles  the  first,  almost  to 
verbal  repetition,1  and  such  repetition  well  agrees  with  the  fami- 
liar tradition  of  Jerome  concerning  the  apostle  of  love,  ever  ex- 
horting the  congregation,  in  his  advanced  age,  to  love  one  another. 
The  difference  of  opinion  in  the  ancient  church  respecting  them 
may  have  risen  partly  from  their  private  nature  and  their  brevity, 
and  partly  from  the  fact  that  the  author  styles  himself,  some- 
what remarkably,  the  “ elder,”  the  “ presbyter.”  This  term, 
however,  is  probably  to  be  taken,  not  in  the  official  sense,  but 
in  the  original,  signifying  age  and  dignity  ; for  at  that  time 
John  was  in  fact  a venerable  father  in  Christ,  and  must  have 
been  revered  and  loved  as  a patriarch  among  his  “ little  chil- 
dren.” 


§ 88.  The  Epistles  of  Paul. 

nauXos  ycv6fj.evos  p.4yi<rros  viroypajxfxSs.  (Clement  of  Rome.) 

Comp.  §§  29-36  and  71. 

General  Character. 

Paul  was  the  greatest  worker  among  the  apostles,  not  only  as 
a missionary,  but  also  as  a writer.  He  “labored  more  than 
all.”  And  we  may  well  include  in  this  “ all  ” the  whole  body 
of  theologians  who  came  after  him ; for  where  shall  we  find  an 
equal  wealth  of  the  profoundest  thoughts  on  the  highest  themes 
as  in  Paul?  We  have  from  him  thirteen  Epistles;  how  many 
more  were  lost,  we  cannot  even  conjecture.  The  four  most  im- 
portant of  them  are  admitted  to  be  genuine  even  by  the  most 
exacting  and  sceptical  critics.  They  are  so  stamped  with  the 
individuality  of  Paul,  and  so  replete  with  tokens  of  his  age  and 
surroundings,  that  no  sane  man  can  mistake  the  authorship. 
We  might  as  well  doubt  the  genuineness  of  Luther’s  work  on 
the  Babylonian  captivity,  or  his  small  catechism.  The  heretic 
Marcion,  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  accepted  ten, 
excluding  only  the  three  Pastoral  Epistles  which  did  not  suit 
his  notions. 

1 Comp.  2 John  4-7  with  1 John  2 : 7,  8 ; 4 , 2,  3. 


750 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


The  Pauline  Epistles  are  pastoral  addresses  to  congregations  of 
his  own  founding  (except  that  of  Koine,  and  probably  also  that 
of  Colossse,  which  were  founded  by  his  pupils),  or  to  individuals 
(Timothy,  Titus,  Philemon).  Several  of  them  hail  from  prison, 
but  breathe  the  same  spirit  of  faith,  hope,  and  joy  as  the  others, 
and  the  last  ends  with  a shout  of  victory.  They  proceeded 
from  profound  agitation,  and  yet  are  calm  and  serene.  They 
were  occasioned  by  the  trials,  dangers,  and  errors  incident  to 
every  new  congregation,  and  the  care  and  anxiety  of  the  apostle 
for  their  spiritual  welfare.  He  had  led  them  from  the  darkness 
of  heathen  idolatry  and  J ewish  bigotry  to  the  light  of  Christian 
truth  and  freedom,  and  raised  them  from  the  slime  of  depravity 
to  the  pure  height  of  saving  grace  and  holy  living.  He  had  no 
family  ties,  and  threw  the  whole  strength  of  his  affections  into 
his  converts,  whom  he  loved  as  tenderly  as  a mother  can  love 
her  offspring.1  This  love  to  his  spiritual  children  was  inspired 
by  his  love  to  Christ,  as  his  love  to  Christ  was  the  response  to 
Christ’s  love  for  him.  Nor  was  his  love  confined  to  the 
brethren  : he  was  ready  to  make  the  greatest  sacrifice  for  his 
unbelieving  and  persecuting  fellow- Jews,  as  Christ  himself 
sacrificed  his  life  for  his  enemies. 

His  Epistles  touch  on  every  important  truth  and  duty  of  the 
Christian  religion,  and  illuminate  them  from  the  heights  of 
knowledge  and  experience,  without  pretending  to  exhaust  them. 
They  furnish  the  best  material  for  a system  of  dogmatics  and 
ethics.  Paul  looks  back  to  the  remotest  beginning  before  the 
creation,  and  looks  out  into  the  farthest  future  beyond  death 
and  the  resurrection.  He  writes  with  the  authority  of  a com- 
missioned apostle  and  inspired  teacher,  yet,  on  questions  of  ex- 
pediency, he  distinguishes  between  the  command  of  the  Lord 
and  his  private  judgment.  He  seems  to  have  written  rapidly 
and  under  great  pressure,  without  correcting  his  first  draft.  If 

1 As  he  writes  himself  to  the  Thessalonians  (1  Thess.  2:7):  “We  were 
gentle  in  the  midst  of  you,  as  when  a nurse  cherisheth  her  own  children.” 
And  to  the  ungrateful  and  unsteady  Galatians  he  writes  (4:9):  “ My  little 
children,  of  whom  I am  again  in  travail  until  Christ  be  formed  in  you.’* 


§ 88.  TIIE  EPISTLES  OF  PAUL. 


751 


we  find,  witli  Peter,  in  his  letters,  “ some  things  hard  to  be 
understood,”  even  in  this  nineteenth  century,  we  must  remem- 
ber that  Paul  himself  bowed  in  reverence  before  the  boundless 
ocean  of  God’s  truth,  and  humbly  professed  to  know  only  in 
part,  and  to  see  through  a mirror  darkly.  All  knowledge  in 
this  world  “ ends  in  mystery.”  1 Our  best  systems  of  theology 
are  but  dim  reflections  of  the  sunlight  of  revelation.  Infinite 
truths  transcend  our  finite  minds,  and  cannot  be  compressed 
into  the  pigeon-holes  of  logical  formulas.  But  every  good  com- 
mentary adds  to  the  understanding  and  strengthens  the  estimate 
of  the  paramount  value  of  these  Epistles. 

The  Chronological  Order. 

Paul’s  Epistles  were  written  within  a period  of  about  twelve 
years,  between  a.d.  52  or  53  and  64  or  67,  when  he  stood  at 
the  height  of  his  power  and  influence.  None  was  composed 
before  the  Council  of  Jerusalem.  From  the  date  of  his  conver- 
sion to  his  second  missionary  journey  (a.d.  37  to  52)  we  have 
no  documents  of  his  pen.  The  chronology  of  his  letters  can  be 
better  ascertained  than  that  of  the  Gospels  or  Catholic  Epistles, 
by  combining  internal  indications  with  the  Acts  and  contem- 
porary events,  such  as  the  dates  of  the  proconsulship  of  Gallio 
in  Achaia,  and  the  procuratorship  of  Felix  and  Festus  in  Judaea. 
As  to  the  Romans,  we  can  determine  the  place,  the  year,  and 
the  season  of  composition  : he  sends  greetings  from  persons  in 
Corinth  (16  : 23),  commends  Phoebe,  a deaconess  of  Kenchreae, 
the  port  of  Corinth,  and  the  bearer  of  the  letter  (16  : 1) ; he 
had  not  yet  been  in  Rome  (1  : 13),  but  hoped  to  get  there  after 
another  visit  to  Jerusalem,  on  which  he  was  about  to  enter, 
with  collections  from  Macedonia  and  Achaia  for  the  poor 
brethren  in  Judaea  (15  : 22-29 ; comp.  2 Cor.  8 : 1-3) ; and 
from  Acts  we  learn  that  on  his  last  visit  to  Achaia  he  abode 
three  months  in  Corinth,  and  returned  to  Syria  between  the 
Passover  and  Pentecost  (Acts  20  : 3,  6,  16).  This  was  his  fifth 

’ “ Das  ist  das  Ende  der  Philosophic : zu  wissen,  doss  wir  glauben  mussen 
(Geibel.) 


752 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


and  last  journey  to  Jerusalem,  where  he  was  taken  prisoner  and 
sent  to  Felix  in  Caesarea,  two  years  before  he  was  followed  by 
Festus.  All  these  indications  lead  us  to  the  spring  of  a.d.  58. 

The  chronological  order  is  this : Thessalonians  were  written 
first,  a.d.  52  or  53  ; then  Galatians,  Corinthians,  and  Homans, 
between  56  and  58 ; then  the  Epistles  of  the  captivity : Colos- 
sians,  Ephesians,  Philemon,  Philippians,  between  61  and  63; 
last,  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  but  their  date  is  uncertain,  except 
that  the  second  Epistle  to  Timothy  is  his  farewell  letter  on  the 
eve  of  his  martyrdom. 

It  is  instructive  to  study  the  Epistles  in  their  chronological 
order  with  the  aid  of  the  Acts,  and  so  to  accompany  the  apostle 
in  his  missionary  career  from  Damascus  to  Home,  and  to  trace 
the  growth  of  his  doctrinal  system  from  the  documentary  truths 
in  Thessalonians  to  the  height  of  maturity  in  Homans  ; then 
through  the  ramifications  of  particular  topics  in  Colossians, 
Ephesians,  Philippians,  and  the  farewell  counsels  in  the  Pas- 
toral Epistles. 

Doctrinal  Arrangement. 

More  important  than  the  chronological  order  is  the  topical 
order,  according  to  the  prevailing  object  and  central  idea.  This 
gives  us  the  following  groups : 

1.  Anthropological  and  Soteriological  : Galatians  and  Ho- 
mans. 

2.  Ethical  and  Ecclesiastical  : First  and  Second  Corinthi- 
ans. 

3.  Christological  : Colossians  and  Philippians. 

4.  Ecclesiological  : Ephesians  (in  part  also  Corinthians). 

5.  Eschatological  : Thessalonians. 

6.  Pastoral  : Timothy  and  Titus. 

7.  Social  and  Personal  : Philemon. 

The  Style. 

“ The  style  is  the  man”  This  applies  with  peculiar  force  to 
Paul.  His  style  has  been  called  “ the  most  personal  that  ever 


§ 88.  THE  EPISTLES  OF  PAUL. 


753 


existed.”  1 It  fitly  represents  the  force  and  fire  of  his  mind  and 
the  tender  affections  of  his  heart.  He  disclaims  classical  ele- 
gance and  calls  himself  “ rude  in  speech,”  though  by  no  means 
“ in  knowledge.”  lie  carried  the  heavenly  treasure  in  earthen 
vessels.  But  the  defects  are  more  than  made  up  by  excellences. 
In  his  very  weakness  the  strength  of  Christ  was  perfected.  W e 
are  not  lost  in  the  admiration  of  the  mere  form,  but  are  kept 
mindful  of  the  paramount  importance  of  the  contents  and  the 
hidden  depths  of  truth  which  lie  behind  the  words  and  defy  the 
power  of  expression. 

Paul’s  style  is  manly,  bold,  heroic,  aggressive,  and  warlike ; 
yet  at  times  tender,  delicate,  gentle,  and  winning.  It  is  in- 
volved, irregular,  and  rugged,  but  always  forcible  and  expres- 
sive, and  not  seldom  rises  to  more  than  poetic  beauty,  as  in  the 
triumphant  poean  at  the  end  of  the  eighth  chapter  of  Homans, 
and  in  the  ode  on  love  (1  Cor.  13).  His  intense  earnestness  and 
overflowing  fulness  of  ideas  break  through  the  ordinary  rules  of 
grammar.  His  logic  is  set  on  fire.  He  abounds  in  skilful  argu- 
ments, bold  antitheses,  impetuous  assaults,  abrupt  transitions, 
sudden  turns,  zigzag  flashes,  startling  questions  and  exclama- 
tions. He  is  dialectical  and  argumentative ; he  likes  logical 
particles,  paradoxical  phrases,  and  plays  on  words.  He  reasons 
from  Scripture,  from  premises,  from  conclusions ; he  drives  the 
opponent  to  the  wall  without  mercy  and  reduces  him  ad  cnhsur- 
dum,  but  without  ever  indulging  in  personalities.  He  is  fami- 
liar with  the  sharp  weapons  of  ridicule,  irony,  and  sarcasm,  but 
holds  them  in  check  and  uses  them  rarely.  He  varies  the  argu- 
ment by  touching  appeals  to  the  heart  and  bursts  of  seraphic  elo- 
quence. He  is  never  dry  or  dull,  and  never  wastes  words ; he 
is  brief,  terse,  and  hits  the  nail  on  the  head.  His  terseness 
makes  him  at  times  obscure,  as  is  the  case  with  the  somewhat 
similar  style  of  Thucydides,  Tacitus,  and  Tertullian.  His  words 
are  as  many  warriors  marching  on  to  victory  and  peace  ; they 
are  like  a mountain  torrent  rushing  in  foaming  rapids  over  pre- 

1 By  Renan,  who,  notwithstanding-  his  fastidious  French  taste  and  antipathy 
to  Paul’s  theology,  cannot  help  admiring  his  lofty  genius. 


754 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


cipices,  and  then  calmly  flowing  over  green  meadows,  or  like  a 
thunderstorm  ending  in  a refreshing  shower  and  bright  sun- 
shine. 

Paul  created  the  vocabulary  of  scientific  theology  and  put  a 
profounder  meaning  into  religious  and  moral  terms  than  they 
ever  had  before.  We  cannot  speak  of  sin,  flesh,  grace,  mercy, 
peace,  redemption,  atonement,  justification,  glorification,  church, 
faith,  love,  without  bearing  testimony  to  the  ineffaceable  effect 
which  that  greatest  of  Jewish  rabbis  and  Christian  teachers  has 
had  upon  the  language  of  Christendom. 

Notes. 

Chrysostom  justly  compares  the  Epistles  of  Paul  to  metals  more  pre- 
cious than  gold  and  to  unfailing  fountains  which  flow  the  more  abun- 
dantly the  more  we  drink  of  them. 

Beza.  : “ When  I more  closely  consider  the  whole  genius  and  character 
of  Paul’s  style,  I must  confess  that  I have  found  no  such  sublimity  of 
speaking  in  Plato  himself  ...  no  exquisiteness  of  vehemence  in  Demos- 
thenes equal  to  his.” 

Ewald  begins  his  Commentary  on  the  Pauline  Epistles  (Gottingen, 
1857)  with  these  striking  and  truthful  remarks:  “Considering  these 
Epistles  for  themselves  only,  and  apart  from  the  general  significance  of 
the  great  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  we  must  still  admit  that,  in  the  whole 
history  of  all  centuries  and  oi  i nations,  there  is  no  other  set  of  writ- 
ings of  similar  extent,  which,  as  creations  of  the  fugitive  moment,  have 
proceeded  from  such  severe  troubles  of  the  age,  and  such  profound  pains 
and  sufferings  of  the  author  himself,  and  yet  contain  such  an  amount  of 
healthfulness,  serenity,  and  vigor  of  immortal  genius,  and  touch  with 
such  clearness  and  certainty  on  the  very  highest  truths  of  human  aspira- 
tion and  action.  . . . The  smallest  as  well  as  the  greatest  of  these 

Epistles  seem  to  have  proceeded  from  the  fleeting  moments  of  this 
earthly  life  only  to  enchain  all  eternity ; they  were  bom  of  anxiety  and 
bitterness  of  human  strife,  to  set  forth  in  brighter  lustre  and  with  higher 
certainty  their  superhuman  grace  and  beauty.  The  divine  assurance  and 
firmness  of  the  old  prophets  of  Israel,  the  all-transcending  glory  and 
immediate  spiritual  presence  of  the  Eternal  King  and  Lord,  who  had 
just  ascended  to  heaven,  and  all  the  art  and  culture  of  a ripe  and  wonder- 
fully excited  age,  seem  to  have  joined,  as  it  were,  in  bringing  forth  the 
new  creation  of  these  Epistles  of  the  times  which  were  destined  to  last 
for  all  times.” 

On  the  style  of  Paul,  see  my  Companion , etc.,  pp.  62  sqq.  To  the 
testimonies  there  given  I add  the  judgment  of  Iveuss  ( Geschichte  der  h. 


§ 89.  THE  EPISTLES  TO  TIIE  TIIESSALONIANS.  755 


Schr.  JV.  T.y  I.  67) : “ Still  more  [than  tho  method]  is  the  style  of  all 
these  Epistles  the  true  expression  of  the  personality  of  the  author.  The 
defect  of  classical  correctness  and  rhetorical  finish  is  more  than  com- 
pensated by  the  riches  of  language  and  the  fulness  of  expression.  The 
condensation  of  construction  demands  not  reading  simply,  but  studying. 
Broken  sentences,  ellipses,  parentheses,  leaps  in  the  argumentation, 
allegories,  rhetorical  figures  express  inimitably  all  the  moods  of  a wide- 
awake and  cultured  mind,  all  the  affections  of  a rich  and  deep  heart,  and 
betray  everywhere  a pen  at  once  bold,  and  yet  too  slow  for  the  thought. 
Antitheses,  climaxes,  exclamations,  questions  keep  up  the  attention,  and 
touching  effusions  win  the  heart  of  the  reader.” 


§ 89.  The  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians. 

Tliessalonica,1  a large  and  wealthy  commercial  city  of  Mace- 
donia, the  capital  of  “ Macedonia  secunda,”  the  seat  of  a Roman 
proconsul  and  quaestor,  and  inhabited  by  many  Jews,  was  visited 
by  Paul  on  his  second  missionary  tour,  a.d.  52  or  53,  and  in  a 
few  weeks  he  succeeded,  amid  much  persecution,  in  founding  a 
flourishing  church  composed  chiefly  of  Gentiles.  From  this  cen- 
tre Christianity  spread  throughout  the  neighborhood,  and  dur- 
ing the  middle  ages  Thessalonica  was,  till  its  capture  by  the 
Turks  (a.d.  1430),  a bulwark  of  the  Byzantine  empire  and 
Oriental  Christendom,  and  largely  instrumental  in  the  conver- 
sion of  the  Slavonians  and  Bulgarians;  hence  it  received  the 
designation  of  ‘£  the  Orthodox  City.”  It  numbered  many  learned 
archbishops,  and  still  has  more  remains  of  ecclesiastical  antiquity 
than  any  other  city  in  Greece,  although  its  cathedral  is  turned 
into  a mosque. 

To  this  church  Paul,  as  its  spiritual  father,  full  of  affection 
for  his  inexperienced  children,  wrote  in  familiar  conversational 
style  two  letters  from  Corinth,  during  his  first  sojourn  in  that 
city,  to  comfort  them  in  their  trials  and  to  correct  certain  mis- 
apprehensions of  his  preaching  concerning  the  glorious  return 
of  Christ,  and  the  preceding  development  of  “ the  man  of  sin  ” 
or  Antichrist,  and  “ the  mystery  of  lawlessness,”  then  already 
at  work,  but  checked  by  a restraining  power.  The  hope  of  the 
1 Strabo  calls  it  ©ea-craAoW/ceta.  Its  present  name  is  Salonichi. 


756 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


near  advent  had  degenerated  into  an  enthusiastic  adventism 
which  demoralized  the  every-day  life.  He  now  taught  them 
that  the  Lord  will  not  come  so  soon  as  they  expected,  that  it 
was  not  a matter  of  mathematical  calculation,  and  that  in  no 
case  should  the  expectation  check  industry  and  zeal,  but  rather 
stimulate  them.  Hence  his  exhortations  to  a sober,  orderly, 
diligent,  and  prayerful  life. 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  first  Epistles  of  Paul  should  treat  of 
the  last  topic  in  the  theological  system  and  anticipate  the  end 
at  the  beginning.  But  the  hope  of  Christ’s  speedy  coming  was, 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  greatest  source  of  con- 
solation to  the  infant  church  amid  trial  and  persecution,  and  the 
church  at  Thessalonica  was  severely  tried  in  its  infancy,  and 
Paul  driven  away.  It  is  also  remarkable  that  to  a young  church 
in  Greece  rather  than  to  that  in  Pome  should  have  first  been 
revealed  the  beginning  of  that  mystery  of  anti-Christian  lawless- 
ness which  was  then  still  restrained,  but  was  to  break  out  in  its 
full  force  in  Pome.1 

The  objections  of  Baur  to  the  genuineness  of  these  Epistles, 
especially  the  second,  are  futile  in  the  judgment  of  the  best 
critics.2 

1 The  difficult  passage,  2 Thess.  2 : 1-12,  must  be  explained  in  connection 
with  the  prophecies  of  Daniel  (the  fourth  empire)  and  the  Apocalypse.  See 
the  commentaries  of  Liinemann,  Lange  (Riggenbach,  translated  by  Lillie), 
Ellicott,  Jowett,  Marcus  Dods,  and  the  Excursus  of  Farrar  on  the  Man  of  Sin 
(St.  Paul , II.  583-587).  Many  modern  exegetes  adopt  the  patristic  interpreta- 
tion that  “the  restraining  power”  (rb  ko.t4xov)  is  the  Roman  empire,  “the 
restrainer  ” (6  Karex^)  the  then  reigning  emperor  (Claudius),  and  “the  man  of 
sin  ” his  successor,  Nero.  But  the  last  is  very  doubtful.  The  whole  passage 
must  have  a prophetic  sweep  far  beyond  the  time  of  the  old  Roman  empire. 
There  are  “ many  antichrists”  and  many  restraining  forces  and  persons  in  the 
successive  ages,  and  the  end  is  yet  apparently  afar  off.  “ Obviously,  whatever 
the  words  signify,  they  must  mean  something  which  has  existed  from  Paul’s  day 
to  our  own,  something  which,  during  that  whole  period,  has  had  the  effect  of 
restraining  wickedness.”  (Dods,  in  Schaff  s Com.  on  the  N.  T. , III  535.) 

2 Grimm,  Liinemann,  Reuss,  Lipsius,  and  others  have  refuted  the  argu- 
ments of  Baur.  The  first  Epistle  is  conceded  to  be  genuine  also  by  Hilgenfeld, 
who  declares  (Einleit.,  p 246):  “ In  dem  ganzen  Brief  erkennt  man  die 
Sprache  des  Paulus.  Es  ist  kein  Grund  vorhanden,  denselben  dem  Paulus 
abzusprechen.  Nicht  so  bedeutsam , wie  andere  Briefe , ist  derselbe  eines  Paidrn 


§ 90.  THE  EPISTLES  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS.  757 


The  Theoretical  Theme:  The  parousia  of  Christ.  The  Practical 
Theme  : Christian  hope  in  the  midst  of  persecution. 

Leading  Thoughts  : This  is  the  will  of  God,  even  your  sanctification 
(1  Thess.  4 : 3).  Sorrow  not  as  the  rest  who  have  no  hope  (4  : 13).  The 
Lord  will  descend  from  heaven,  and  so  shall  we  ever  be  with  the  Lord 
(4  : 1G,  17).  The  day  of  the  Lord  so  cometh  as  a thief  in  the  night  (5:2). 
Let  us  watch  and  be  sober  (5:6).  Put  on  the  breastplate  of  faith  and 
love,  and  for  a helmet,  the  hope  of  salvation  (5:8).  Rejoice  always ; 
pray  without  ceasing;  in  everything  give  thanks  (5:16).  Prove  all 
things ; hold  fast  that  which  is  good ; abstain  from  every  form  of  evil 
(5  : 21,  22).  The  Lord  will  come  to  be  glorified  in  his  saints  (2  Thess. 
1 : 10).  But  the  falling  away  must  come  first,  and  the  man  of  sin  be  re- 
vealed, the  son  of  perdition  (2  : 3,  4).  The  mystery  of  lawlessness  doth 
already  work,  but  is  restrained  for  the  time  (2:7).  Stand  fast  and  hold 
the  traditions  which  ye  were  taught,  whether  by  word,  or  by  epistle  of 
ours  (2  : 15).  If  any  will  not  work,  neither  let  him  eat  (3  : 10).  Be  not 
weary  in  well-doing  (3:13).  The  God  of  peace  sanctify  you  wholly; 
and  may  your  spirit  and  soul  and  body  be  preserved  entire,  without 
blame  at  the  coming  (eV  rji  napovaia)  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  (1  Thess. 
5 : 23). 


§ 90.  The  Epistles  to  the  Corinthicms. 

Corinth  was  the  metropolis  of  Achaia,  on  the  bridge  of  two 
seas,  an  emporium  of  trade  between  the  East  and  the  West — 
wealthy,  luxurious,  art-loving,  devoted  to  the  worship  of  Aphro- 
dite. Here  Paul  established  the  most  important  church  in 
Greece,  and  labored,  first  eighteen  months,  then  three  months, 
with,  perhaps,  a short  visit  between  (2  Cor.  12:14;  13:1). 
The  church  presented  all  the  lights  and  shades  of  the  Greek 
nationality  under  the  influence  of  the  Gospel.  It  was  rich  in 
“ all  utterance  and  all  knowledge,”  “ coming  behind  in  no  gift,” 
but  troubled  by  the  spirit  of  sect  and  party,  infected  with  a 


keineswegs  unwurdig , melmehr  tin  Uebenswurdiges  Denkmal  vaterlicher  Fur- 
sorge  des  Apostels  f ur  tine  junge  Christengemeinde."  But  the  second  Ep.  to 
the  Thess.  Hilgenfeld  assigns  to  the  age  of  Trajan,  as  a sort  of  Pauline 
Apocalypse ; thus  reversing  the  view  of  Baur,  who  regarded  the  First  Ep.  as 
an  imitation  of  the  second.  Grotius  and  Ewald  put  the  Second  Ep.  likewise 
first  (especially  on  account  of  1 Thess.  1 : 7.  8,  which  seems  to  imply  that  the 
congregation  had  already  become  famous  throughout  Greece),  but  they  re- 
garded both  as  genuine. 


758 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


morbid  desire  for  worldly  wisdom  and  brilliant  eloquence,  with 
scepticism  and  moral  levity — nay,  to  some  extent  polluted  with 
gross  vices,  so  that  even  the  Lord’s  table  and  love  feasts  were 
desecrated  by  excesses,  and  that  the  apostle,  in  his  absence, 
found  himself  compelled  to  excommunicate  a particularly  offen- 
sive member  who  disgraced  the  Christian  profession.1  It  was 
distracted  by  Judaizers  and  other  troublers,  who  abused  the 
names  of  Cephas,  James,  Apollos,  and  even  of  Christ  (as  extra- 
Christians),  for  sectarian  ends.2  A number  of  questions  of 
morality  and  casuistry  arose  in  that  lively,  speculative,  and  ex- 
citable community,  which  the  apostle  had  to  answer  from  a 
distance  before  his  second  (or  third)  and  last  visit. 

Hence,  these  Epistles  abound  in  variety  of  topics,  and  show 
the  extraordinary  versatility  of  the  mind  of  the  writer,  and  his 
practical  wisdom  in  dealing  with  delicate  and  complicated 
questions  and  unscrupulous  opponents.  For  every  aberration 
he  has  a word  of  severe  censure,  for  every  danger  a word  of 
warning,  for  every  weakness  a word  of  cheer  and  sympathy, 
for  every  returning  offender  a word  of  pardon  and  encourage- 
ment. The  Epistles  lack  the  unity  of  design  which  characterizes 
Galatians  and  Homans.  They  are  ethical,  ecclesiastical,  pas- 
toral, and  personal,  rather  than  dogmatic  and  theological,  al- 
though some  most  important  doctrines,  as  that  on  the  resurrec- 
tion, are  treated  more  fully  than  elsewhere. 

I.  The  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  was  composed  in 
Ephesus  shortly  before  Paul’s  departure  for  Greece,  in  the  spring 

1 Such  scandals  would  be  almost  incredible  in  a Christian  church  if  the 
apostle  did  not  tell  us  so.  As  to  the  case  of  incest,  1 Cor.  5 : 1 sqq.,  we  should 
remember  that  Corinth  was  the  most  licentious  city  in  all  Greece,  and  that  in 
the  splendid  temple  of  her  patron-goddess  on  the  Acropolis  there  were  kept 
more  than  a thousand  sacred  female  slaves  (Up6Sov\ot)  for  the  pleasure  of 
strangers.  K opiv&ia  uSpri  was  the  name  for  a courtesan.  Chastity  was  there- 
fore one  of  the  most  difficult  virtues  to  practice  there  ; and  hence  the  apostle’s 
advice  of  a radical  cure  by  absolute  abstinence  under  the  peculiar  circumstances 
of  the  time. 

- The  question  of  the  Corinthian  parties  (with  special  reference  to  the  Christ 
party)  I have  discussed  at  length  in  my  Hist,  of  the  Ap.  Church , pp.  285-291. 
Baur’s  essay  on  this  subject  (1831)  was  the  opening  chapter  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  Tubingen  theory. 


§ 90.  TIIE  EPISTLES  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS.  759 


of  a.d.  57.1  It  had  been  preceded  by  another  one,  now  lost 
(5  : 9).  It  was  an  answer  to  perplexing  questions  concerning 
various  disputes  and  evils  which  disturbed  the  peace  and  spotted 
the  purity  of  the  congregation.  The  apostle  contrasts  the  foolish 
wisdom  of  the  gospel  with  the  wise  folly  of  human  philosophy  ; 
rebukes  sectarianism ; unfolds  the  spiritual  unity  and  harmo- 
nious variety  of  the  church  of  Christ,  her  offices  and  gifts  of 
grace,  chief  among  which  is  love  ; warns  against  carnal  impurity 
as  a violation  of  the  temple  of  God  ; gives  advice  concerning 
marriage  and  celibacy  without  binding  the  conscience  (having 
“ no  commandment  of  the  Lord,”  7 : 25) ; discusses  the  question 
of  meat  sacrificed  to  idols,  on  which  Jewish  and  Gentile  Chris- 
tians, scrupulous  and  liberal  brethren,  were  divided ; enjoins 
the  temporal  support  of  the  ministry  as  a Christian  duty  of 
gratitude  for  greater  spiritual  mercies  received  ; guards  against 
improprieties  of  dress;  explains  the  design  and  corrects  the 
abuses  of  the  Lord’s  Supper ; and  gives  the  fullest  exposition 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  on  the  basis  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ  and  his  personal  manifestations  to  the  disciples, 
and  last,  to  himself  at  his  conversion.  Dean  Stanley  says  of 
this  Epistle  that  it  “ gives  a clearer  insight  than  any  other  por- 
tion of  the  New  Testament  into  the  institutions,  feelings,  and 
opinions  of  the  church  of  the  earlier  period  of  the  apostolic  age. 
It  is  in  every  sense  the  earliest  chapter  of  the  history  of  the 
Christian  church.”  The  last,  however,  is  not  quite  correct. 
The  Corinthian  chapter  was  preceded  by  the  Jerusalem  and 
Antioch  chapters. 

Leading  Thoughts  : Is  Christ  divided  ? Was  Paul  crucified  for  you 
(1 : 13)  ? It  was  God’s  pleasure  through  the  foolishness  of  the  preaching 
[not  through  foolish  preaching]  to  save  them  that  believe  (1  : 21).  We 
preach  Christ  crucified,  unto  the  Jews  a stumbling  block,  and  unto  Gentiles 
foolishness,  but  unto  them  that  are  called,  both  Jews  and  Greeks,  Christ 
the  power  of  God,  and  the  wisdom  of  God  (1 : 24).  I determined  not 
to  know  anything  among  you,  save  Jesus,  and  him  crucified  (2:2).  The 
natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God  (2  : 14).  Other 
foundation  can  no  man  lay  than  that  which  is  laid,  which  is  Jesus 

1 Comp.  1 Cor.  16  : 5,  8 ; 5 : 7,  8 ; Acts  19  : 10,  21 ; 20  : 31. 


760 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Christ  (3  : 11).  Know  ye  not  that  ye  are  a temple  of  God,  and  that  the 
Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  yon?  If  any  man  destroy  the  temple  of  God, 
him  shall  God  destroy  (3  : 16,  17).  Let  a man  so  account  of  ourselves 
as  of  ministers  of  Christ,  and  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God  (4  : 1). 
The  kingdom  of  God  is  not  in  word,  but  in  power  (4  : 20).  Purge  out 
the  old  leaven  (5  : 7).  All  things  are  lawful  for  me  ; but  not  all  things 
are  expedient  (6  : 12).  Know  ye  not  that  your  bodies  are  members  of 
Christ  (6  : 15)  ? Flee  fornication  (6  : 18) . Glorify  God  in  your  body 
(6  : 20).  Circumcision  is  nothing,  and  uncircumcision  is  nothing;  but 
the  keeping  of  the  commandments  of  God  (7  : 19).  Let  each  man  abide 
in  that  calling  wherein  he  was  called  (7  : 20).  Ye  were  bought  with  a 
price ; become  not  bondservants  of  men  (7 : 23).  Take  heed  lest  this 
liberty  of  yours  become  a stumbling  block  to  the  weak  (8:9).  If  meat 
[or  wine]  maketh  my  brother  to  stumble,  I will  eat  no  flesh  [and  drink 
no  wine]  for  evermore,  that  I make  not  my  brother  to  stumble  (8 : 13). 
They  who  proclaim  the  gospel  shall  live  of  the  gospel  (9 : 14).  Woe 
is  unto  me  if  I preach  not  the  gospel  (9:16).  I am  become  all 
things  to  all  men,  that  I may  by  all  means  save  some  (9  : 22).  Let  him 
that  thinketh  he  standeth  take  heed  lest  he  fall  (10  : 12).  All  things 
are  lawful,  but  all  things  are  not  expedient.  Let  no  man  seek  his  own, 
but  each  his  neighbor’s  good  (10  : 23).  Whosoever  shall  eat  the  bread 
or  drink  the  cup  of  the  Lord  in  an  unworthy  manner,  shall  be  guilty  of 
the  body  and  the  blood  of  the  Lord  . . . He  that  eateth  and  drinketh 
eateth  and  drinketh  judgment  unto  himself  if  he  discern  (discriminate) 
not  the  body  (11 : 27-29).  There  are  diversities  of  gifts,  but  the  same 
Spirit  (12 : 4).  Now  abideth  faith,  hope,  love,  these  three ; and  the 
greatest  of  these  is  love  (13  : 13).  Follow  after  love  (14  : 1).  Let  all 
things  be  done  unto  edifying  (14 : 26).  By  the  grace  of  God  I am  what  I 
am  (15  : 9).  If  Christ  hath  not  been  raised,  your  faith  is  vain  ; ye  are  yet 
in  your  sins  (15  : 17).  As  in  Adam  all  die,  so  also  in  Christ  shall  all  be 
made  alive  (15  : 22).  God  shall  be  all  in  all  (15  : 28).  If  there  is  a natural 
body,  there  is  also  a spiritual  body  (15  :44).  This  corruptible  must  put 
on  incorruption,  and  this  mortal  must  put  on  immortality  (15 : 54).  Be  ye 
steadfast,  immovable,  always  abounding  in  the  work  of  the  Lord  (15  : 58). 
Upon  the  first  day  in  the  week  let  each  one  of  you  lay  by  him  in  store, 
as  he  may  prosper  (16  : 2).  Watch  ye,  stand  fast  in  the  faith,  quit  you 
like  men,  be  strong.  Let  all  that  ye  do  be  done  in  love  (16  : 13,  14.). 

II.  Tiie  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  was  written  in 
the  summer  or  autumn  of  the  same  year,  57,  from  some  place 
in  Macedonia,  shortly  before  the  author’s  intended  personal 
visit  to  the  metropolis  of  Achaia.1  It  evidently  proceeded 

1 2 Cor.  7:5;  8:1;  9:2.  Some  ancient  MSS.  date  the  second  Epistle 
from  Philippi. 


§ 90.  THE  EPISTLES  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS.  761 


from  profound  agitation,  and  opens  to  us  very  freely  the  per- 
sonal character  and  feelings,  the  official  trials  and  joys,  the 
noble  pride  and  deep  humility,  the  holy  earnestness  and  fervent 
love,  of  the  apostle.  It  gives  us  the  deepest  insight  into  his 
heart,  and  is  almost  an  autobiography.  He  had,  in  the  mean- 
time, heard  fuller  news,  through  Titus,  of  the  state  of  the 
church,  the  effects  produced  by  his  first  Epistle,  and  the  in- 
trigues of  the  emissaries  of  the  Judaizing  party,  who  followed 
him  everywhere  and  tried  to  undermine  his  work.  This  un- 
christian opposition  compelled  him,  in  self-defence,  to  speak  of 
his  ministry  and  his  personal  experience  with  overpowering 
eloquence.  He  also  urges  again  upon  the  congregation  the 
duty  of  charitable  collections  for  the  poor.  The  Epistle  is  a 
mine  of  pastoral  wisdom. 

Leading  Thoughts  : As  the  sufferings  of  Christ  abound  unto  us,  even 
so  our  comfort  also  aboundeth  through  Christ  (1:5).  As  ye  are  par- 
takers of  the  sufferings,  so  also  are  ye  of  the  comfort  (1:7).  Not  that 
we  have  lordship  over  your  faith,  but  are  helpers  of  your  joy  (1 : 24). 
Who  is  sufficient  for  these  things  (2  : 16)  ? Ye  are  our  epistle,  written 
in  our  hearts,  known  and  read  of  all  men  (3  : 2).  Not  that  we  are  suffi- 
cient of  ourselves,  but  our  sufficiency  is  from  God  (3  : 5).  The  letter 
killeth,  but  the  spirit  giveth  life  (3  : 6).  The  Lord  is  the  Spirit : and 
where  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is,  there  is  liberty  (3:17).  We  preach  not 
ourselves,  but  Christ  Jesus  as  Lord,  and  ourselves  as  your  servants  for 
Jesus’  sake  (4 : 5).  We  have  this  treasure  in  earthen  vessels,  that  the 
exceeding  greatness  of  the  power  may  be  of  God,  and  not  from  our- 
selves (4:7).  Our  light  affliction,  which  is  for  the  moment,  worketh 
for  us  more  and  more  exceedingly  an  eternal  weight  of  glory  (4 : 17). 
We  know  that  if  the  earthly  house  of  our  tabernacle  be  dissolved,  we 
have  a building  from  God,  a house  not  made  with  hands,  eternal,  in  the 
heavens  (5:1).  We  walk  by  faith,  not  by  sight  (5:7).  We  must  all  be 
made  manifest  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ  (5  : 10).  The  love  of 
Christ  constraineth  us,  because  we  thus  judge,  that  one  died  for  all, 
therefore  all  died  (5 : 14) . And  he  died  for  all,  that  they  who  live 
should  no  longer  live  unto  themselves,  but  unto  him  who  for  their  sakes 
died  and  rose  again  (5  : 15).  If  any  man  is  in  Christ,  he  is  a new  crea- 
ture : the  old  things  are  passed  away ; behold,  they  are  become  new 
(6 : 17).  God  was  in  Christ,  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself,  not 
reckoning  unto  them  their  trespasses,  and  having  committed  unto  us 
the  word  of  reconciliation  (5  : 19).  We  beseech  you  on  behalf  of  Christ, 
be  ye  reconciled  to  God  (5  : 20).  Him  who  knew  no  sin  he  made  to  be 


762 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


sin  in  our  behalf ; that  we  might  become  the  righteousness  of  God  in 
him  (5  : 21).  Be  not  unequally  yoked  with  unbelievers  (6 : 14).  I am 
tilled  with  comfort,  I overflow  with  joy  in  all  our  affliction  (7 : 4).  Godly 
sorrow  worketh  repentance  unto  salvation,  but  the  sorrow  of  the  world 
worketh  death  (7  : 10).  Ye  know  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
that,  though  he  was  rich,  yet  for  your  sakes  he  became  poor,  that  ye 
through  his  poverty  might  become  rich  (8  : 9).  He  that  soweth  spar- 
ingly shall  reap  also  sparingly ; and  he  that  soweth  bountifully  shall 
reap  also  bountifully  (9:6).  God  loveth  a cheerful  giver  (9:7).  He 
that  glorieth,  let  him  glory  in  the  Lord  (10 : 17).  Not  he  that  com- 
mendeth  himself  is  approved,  but  whom  the  Lord  commendeth  (10 : 18). 
My  grace  is  sufficient  for  thee ; for  my  power  is  made  perfect  in  weak- 
ness (12  : 9).  We  can  do  nothing  against  the  truth,  but  for  the  truth 
(13  : 8).  The  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and 
the  communion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  be  with  you  all  (13  : 14). 


§ 91.  The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians . 

Comp,  the  introduction  to  my  Com.  on  Gal.  (1882). 

Galatians  and  Homans  discuss  the  doctrines  of  sin  and  redemp- 
tion, and  the  relation  of  the  law  and  the  gospel.  They  teach 
salvation  by  free  grace  and  justification  by  faith,  Christian  uni- 
versalism  in  opposition  to  Jewish  particularism,  evangelical  free- 
dom versus  legalistic  bondage.  But  Galatians  is  a rapid  sketch 
and  the  child  of  deep  emotion,  Homans  an  elaborate  treatise  and 
the  mature  product  of  calm  reflexion.  The  former  Epistle  is 
polemical  against  foreign  intruders  and  seducers,  the  latter  is 
irenical  and  composed  in  a serene  frame  of  mind.  The  one 
rushes  along  like  a mountain  torrent  and  foaming  cataract,  the 
other  flows  like  a majestic  river  through  a boundless  prairie ; 
and  yet  it  is  the  same  river,  like  the  Nile  at  the  Hapids  and 
below  Cairo,  or  the  Hhine  in  the  Grisons  and  the  lowlands  of 
Germany  and  Holland,  or  the  St.  Lawrence  at  Niagara  Falls 
and  below  Montreal  and  Quebec  where  it  majestically  branches 
out  into  the  ocean. 

It  is  a remarkable  fact  that  the  two  races  represented  by  the 
readers  of  these  Epistles — the  Celtic  and  the  Latin — have  far 
departed  from  the  doctrines  taught  in  them  and  exchanged  the 
gospel  freedom  for  legal  bondage ; thus  repeating  the  apostasy 


§ 91.  TIIE  EPISTLE  TO  TIIE  GALATIANS.  763 

of  the  sanguine,  generous,  impressible,  mercurial,  fickle-minded 
Galatians.  The  Pauline  gospel  was  for  centuries  ignored,  mis- 
understood, and  (in  spite  of  St.  Augustin)  cast  out  at  last  by 
Rome,  as  Christianity  itself  was  cast  out  by  Jerusalem  of  old. 
But  the  overruling  wisdom  of  God  made  the  rule  of  the  papacy 
a training-school  of  the  Teutonic  races  of  the  North  and  West 
for  freedom;  as  it  had  turned  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews  to  the 
conversion  of  the  Gentiles.  Those  Epistles,  more  than  any 
book  of  the  New  Testament,  inspired  the  Reformation  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  and  are  to  this  day  the  Gibraltar  of  evan- 
gelical Protestantism.  Lutlier,  under  a secondary  inspiration, 
reproduced  Galatians  in  liis  war  against  the  “ Babylonian  cap- 
tivity of  the  church ; ” the  battle  for  Christian  freedom  was 
won  once  more,  and  its  fruits  are  enjoyed  by  nations  of  which 
neither  Paul  nor  Luther  ever  heard. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  (Gauls,  originally  from  the 
borders  of  the  Rhine  and  Moselle,  who  had  migrated  to  Asia 
Minor)  was  written  after  Paul’s  second  visit  to  them,  either 
during  his  long  residence  in  Ephesus  (a.d.  54-57),  or  shortly 
afterwards  on  his  second  journey  to  Corinth,  possibly  from 
Corinth,  certainly  before  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  It  was 
occasioned  by  the  machinations  of  the  Judaizing  teachers  who 
undermined  his  apostolic  authority  and  misled  his  converts  into 
an  apostasy  from  the  gospel  of  free  grace  to  a false  gospel  of 
legal  bondage,  requiring  circumcision  as  a condition  of  justifica- 
tion and  full  membership  of  the  church.  It  is  an  “ Apologia 
pro  vita  sua,”  a personal  and  doctrinal  self-vindication.  He  de- 
fends his  independent  apostleship  (1  : 1 to  2 : 14),  and  his  teach- 
ing (2:15  to  4 : 31),  and  closes  with  exhortations  to  hold  fast  to 
Christian  freedom  without  abusing  it,  and  to  show  the  fruits  of 
faith  by  holy  living  (chs.  5 and  6). 

The  Epistle  reveals,  in  clear,  strong  colors,  both  the  difference 
and  the  harmony  among  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  apostles — a dif- 
ference ignored  by  the  old  orthodoxy,  which  sees  only  the  har- 
mony, and  exaggerated  by  modern  scepticism,  which  sees  only 
the  difference.  It  anticipates,  in  grand  fundamental  outlines. 


764 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


a conflict  which  is  renewed  from  time  to  time  in  the  history  of 
different  churches,  and,  on  the  largest  scale,  in  the  conflict  be- 
tween  Petrine  Romanism  and  Pauline  Protestantism.  The 
temporary  collision  of  the  two  leading  apostles  in  Antioch  is 
typical  of  the  battle  of  the  Reformation. 

At  the  same  time  Galatians  is  an  Irenicon  and  sounds  the 
key-note  of  a final  adjustment  of  all  doctrinal  and  ritualistic 
controversies.  “ In  Christ  J esus  neither  circumcision  availeth 
anything,  nor  uncircumcision,  but  faith  working  through  love  ” 
(5  : 6).  “ And  as  many  as  shall  walk  by  this  rule,  peace  be  upon 
them,  and  mercy,  and  upon  the  Israel  of  God  ” (6  : 16). 

Central  Idea  : Evangelical  freedom. 

Key- Words  : For  freedom  Christ  set  ns  free  : stand  fast  therefore,  and 
be  not  entangled  again  in  the  yoke  of  bondage  (5:1).  A man  is  not  justi- 
fied by  works  of  the  law,  but  only  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  (2  : 16). 
I have  been  crucified  with  Christ,  and  it  is  no  longer  I that  live  but 
Christ  liveth  in  me  (2  : 20).  Christ  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the 
law,  having  become  a curse  for  us  (3  : 13).  Ye  were  called  for  freedom, 
only  use  not  your  freedom  for  an  occasion  to  the  flesh,  but  through  love 
be  servants  one  to  another  (5  : 13).  Walk  by  the  Spirit,  and  ye  shall  not 
fulfil  the  lust  of  the  flesh  (5  : 16). 


§ 92.  The  Epistle  to  the  Romans . 

On  the  church  in  Rome,  see  § 36  (pp.  360  sqq.) ; on  the  theology  of  the  Ep. 
to  the  Rom.,  § 71  (pp.  525  sqq.). 

A few  weeks  before  his  fifth  and  last  journey  to  Jerusalem, 
Paul  sent,  as  a forerunner  of  his  intended  personal  visit,  a letter 
to  the  Christians  in  the  capital  of  the  world,  which  was  intended 
by  Providence  to  become  the  Jerusalem  of  Christendom.  Fore- 
seeing its  future  importance,  the  apostle  chose  for  his  theme : 
The  gospel  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  every  believer, 
the  Jew  first,  and  also  the  Gentile  (1  : 16,  17).  Writing  to  the 
philosophical  Greeks,  he  contrasts  the  wisdom  of  God  with  the 
wisdom  of  man.  To  the  world-ruling  Romans  he  represents 
Christianity  as  the  power  of  God  whicli  by  spiritual  weapons 
will  conquer  even  conquering  Rome.  Such  a bold  idea  must 


§ 92.  THE  EPISTLE  TO  TIIE  ROMANS. 


765 


have  struck  a Homan  statesman  as  the  wild  dream  of  a vision- 
ary or  madman,  but  it  was  fulfilled  in  the  ultimate  conversion 
of  the  empire  after  three  centuries  of  persecution,  and  is  still  in 
the  process  of  ever-growing  fulfilment. 

In  the  exposition  of  his  theme  the  apostle  shows : (1)  that  all 
men  are  in  need  of  salvation,  being  under  the  power  of  sin  and 
exposed  to  the  judgment  of  the  righteous  God,  the  Gentiles  not 
only  (1 : 18-32),  but  also  the  Jews,  who  are  still  more  guilty, 
having  sinned  against  the  written  law  and  extraordinary  privi- 
leges (2  : 1 to  3 : 20) ; (2)  that  salvation  is  accomplished  by  Jesus 
Christ,  his  atoning  death  and  triumphant  resurrection,  freely 
offered  to  all  on  the  sole  condition  of  faith,  and  applied  in  the 
successive  acts  of  justification,  sanctification,  and  glorification 
(3:21  to  end  of  chapter  8) ; (3)  that  salvation  was  offered  first 
to  the  Jews,  and,  being  rejected  by  them  in  unbelief,  passed  on 
to  the  Gentiles,  but  will  return  again  to  the  Jews  after  the  ful- 
ness of  the  Gentiles  shall  have  come  in  (chs.  9-11) ; (4)  that  we 
should  show  our  gratitude  for  so  great  a salvation  by  surrender- 
ing ourselves  to  the  service  of  God,  which  is  true  freedom  (chs. 
12  to  16). 

The  salutations  in  the  last  chapter,  the  remarkable  variations 
of  the  manuscripts  in  15  : 33  ; 16  : 20,  24,  27,  and  the  omission 
of  the  words  “ in  Home,”  1 : 7,  15,  in  Codex  G,  are  best  ex- 
plained by  the  conjecture  that  copies  of  the  letter  were  also  sent 
to  Ephesus  (where  Aquila  and  Priscilla  were  at  that  time,  1 Cor. 
16  : 19,  and  again,  some  years  afterwards,  2 Tim.  4 : 19),  and 
perhaps  to  other  churches  with  appropriate  conclusions,  all  of 
which  are  preserved  in  the  present  form.1 

This  letter  stands  justly  at  the  head  of  the  Pauline  Epistles. 

1 On  the  textual  variations,  see  Westcott  and  Hort,  Appendix , pp.  110-114. 
Reuss,  Ewald,  Farrar  suppose  that  ch.  16  (or  16  : 3-20)  was  addressed  to 
Ephesus.  Renan  conjectures  that  an  editor  has  combined  four  copies  of  the 
same  encyclical  letter  of  Paul,  each  addressed  to  a different  church  and  having 
a different  ending.  Both  these  views  are  preferable  to  Baur’s  rejection  of  the 
last  two  chapters  as  spurious;  though  they  are  full  of  the  Pauline  spirit. 
Hilgenfeld  ( Einleit .,  p.  323)  and  Pfleiderer  ( Paulinismus , p.  314)  maintain, 
against  Baur,  the  genuineness  of  chs.  15  and  16.  On  the  names  in  ch.  16  see 
the  instructive  discussion  of  Lightfoot  in  his  Com.  on  Philippians , pp.  172-176. 


766 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


It  is  more  comprehensive  and  systematic  than  the  others,  and 
admirably  adapted  to  the  mistress  of  the  world,  which  was  to 
become  also  the  mistress  of  Western  Christendom.  It  is  the 
most  remarkable  production  of  the  most  remarkable  man.  It 
is  his  heart.  It  contains  his  theology,  theoretical  and  practical, 
for  which  he  lived  and  died.  It  gives  the  clearest  and  fullest 
exposition  of  the  doctrines  of  sin  and  grace  and  the  best  possi- 
ble solution  of  the  universal  dominion  of  sin  and  death  in  the 
universal  redemption  by  the  second  Adam.  Without  this  re- 
demption the  fall  is  indeed  the  darkest  enigma  and  irreconcil- 
able with  the  idea  of  divine  justice  and  goodness.  Paul  rever- 
ently lifts  the  veil  from  the  mysteries  of  eternal  foreknowledge 
and  foreordination  and  God’s  gracious  designs  in  the  winding 
course  of  history  which  will  end  at  last  in  the  triumph  of  his 
wisdom  and  mercy  and  the  greatest  good  to  mankind.  Luther 
calls  Romans  “ the  chief  book  of  the  Tsew  Testament  and  the 
purest  Gospel,”  Coleridge : “ the  profoundest  book  in  existence,” 
Meyer:  “the  greatest  and  richest  of  all  the  apostolic  works,” 
Godet  (best  of  all) : “ the  cathedral  of  the  Christian  faith.” 

Theme  : Christianity  the  power  of  free  and  universal  salvation,  on  con- 
dition of  faith. 

Leading  Thoughts  : They  are  all  under  sin  (3  : 91.  Through  the  law 
cometh  the  knowledge  of  sin  (3  : 20).  Man  is  justified  by  faith  apart 
from  works  of  the  law  (3  : 28).  Being  justified  by  faith  we  have  (eyo/xe v, 
or,  let  us  have,  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 

(5  : 1).  As  through  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death 
through  sin,  and  so  death  passed  unto  all  men,  for  that  all  sinned  (5  : 12) : 
[so  through  one  man  righteousness  entered  into  the  world,  and  life 
through  righteousness,  and  so  life  passed  unto  all  men  on  condition 
that  they  believe  in  Christ  and  by  faith  become  partakers  of  his  righteous- 
ness]. Where  sin  abounded,  grace  did  abound  much  more  exceedingly: 
that  as  sin  reigned  in  death,  even  so  might  grace  reign  through  righteous- 
ness unto  eternal  life  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  (5  : 20,  21).  Reckon 
yourselves  to  be  dead  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto  God  in  Christ  Jesus 
(6  : 11).  There  is  no  condemnation  to  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus 
(8:1).  To  them  that  love  God  all  things  work  together  for  good  (8  : 28). 
Whom  he  foreknew,  he  also  foreordained  to  be  conformed  to  the  image 
of  his  Son  . . . and  whom  he  foreordained  them  he  also  called : and 
whom  he  called,  them  he  also  justified  : and  whom  he  justified,  them  he 


§ 93.  TIIE  EPISTLES  OF  TIIE  CAPTIVITY. 


767 


also  glorified  (8  : 29,  30).  If  God  is  for  us,  who  is  against  us  (8  : 31)  ? 
Who  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ  (8  : 35)?  Hardening  in 
part  hath  befallen  Israel,  until  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in  ; 
and  so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved  (11  : 25).  God  hath  shut  up  all  unto 
disobedience,  that  he  might  have  mercy  upon  all  (11  : 32).  Of  Him,  and 
through  Him,  and  unto  Him  are  all  things  (11  : 36).  Present  your 
bodies  a living  sacrifice,  holy,  acceptable  to  God,  which  is  your  reason- 
able service  (12  : 1). 


§ 93.  The  Epistles  of  the  Captivity. 

During  liis  confinement  in  Dome,  from  a.d.  61  to  63,  while 
waiting  the  issue  of  his  trial  on  the  charge  of  being  “ a mover 
of  insurrections  among  all  the  Jews  throughout  the  world,  and 
a ringleader  of  the  sect  of  the  Hazarenes  ” (Acts  24  : 5),  the  aged 
apostle  composed  four  Epistles,  to  the  Colossians,  Ephesians, 
Philemon,  and  Philippians.  He  thus  turned  the  prison  into  a 
pulpit,  sent  Inspiration  and  comfort  to  his  distant  congregations, 
and  rendered  a greater  service  to  future  ages  than  he  could  have 
done  by  active  labor.  lie  gloried  in  being  a “ prisoner  of  Christ.” 
He  experienced  the  blessedness  of  persecution  for  righteousness’ 
sake  (Matt.  5 : 10),  and  “ the  peace  of  God  which  passeth  all 
understanding  ” (Phil.  4 : 7).  He  often  refers  to  his  bonds,  and 
the  coupling  chain  or  hand-cuff  ( aKvcris ) by  which,  according 
to  Iloman  custom,  he  was  with  his  right  wrist  fettered  day  and 
night  to  a soldier ; one  relieving  the  other  and  being  in  turn 
chained  to  the  apostle,  so  that  his  imprisonment  became  a means 
for  the  spread  of  the  gospel  “ throughout  the  whole  praetorian 
guard.”  1 He  had  the  privilege  of  living  in  his  own  hired 
lodging  (probably  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  praetorian  camp, 
outside  of  the  walls,  to  the  northeast  of  Dome),  and  of  free 
intercourse  with  his  companions  and  distant  congregations. 

Paul  does  not  mention  the  place  of  his  captivity,  which  ex- 
tended through  four  years  and  a half  (two  at  Caesarea,  two  at 
Dome,  and  six  months  spent  on  the  stormy  voyage  and  at  Malta). 

1 Phil.  1 : 7,  13,  14,  17  ; Eph.  3 : 1 (“the  prisoner  of  Christ  Jesus  in  behalf 
of  you  Gentiles”);  4 : 1 (“the  prisoner  in  the  Lord”)  ; Col.  4 :3,  18  (“re- 
member my  bonds”)  ; Philem.  vers.  10,  13 ; comp.  Acts  28  : 17,  30. 


768 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


The  traditional  view  dates  the  four  Epistles  from  the  Boman 
captivity,  and  there  is  no  good  reason  to  depart  from  it.  Several 
modern  critics  assign  one  or  more  to  Caesarea,  where  he  cannot 
be  supposed  to  have  been  idle,  and  where  he  was  nearer  to  his 
congregations  in  Asia  Minor.1  But  in  Caesarea  Paul  looked 
forward  to  Home  and  to  Spain ; while  in  the  Epistles  of  the 
captivity  he  expresses  the  hope  of  soon  visiting  Colossae  and 
Philippi.  In  Borne  he  had  the  best  opportunity  of  correspond- 
ence with  his  distant  friends,  and  enjoyed  a degree  of  freedom 
which  may  have  been  denied  him  in  Caesarea.  In  Philippians  he 
sends  greetings  from  converts  in  “ Caesar’s  household  ” (4  : 22), 
which  naturally  points  to  Borne;  and  the  circumstances  and 
surroundings  of  the  other  Epistles  are  very  much  alike. 

Ephesians,  Colossians,  and  Philemon  were  composed  about 
the  same  time  and  sent  by  the  same  messengers  (Tychicus  and 
Onesimus)  to  Asia  Minor,  probably  toward  the  close  of  the  Bo- 
man  captivity,  for  in  Philemon,  ver.  22,  he  engaged  a lodging 
in  Colossae  in  the  prospect  of  a speedy  release  and  visit  to  the 
East. 

Philippians  we  place  last  in  the  order  of  composition,  or,  at 
all  events,  in  the  second  year  of  the  Boman  captivity ; for  some 
time  must  have  elapsed  after  Paul’s  arrival  in  Borne  before  the 
gospel  could  spread  “ throughout  the  whole  praetorian  guard  ” 
(Phil.  1 : 13),  and  before  the  Philippians,  at  a distance  of  seven 
hundred  miles  from  Borne  (a  full  month’s  journey  in  those 
days),  could  receive  news  from  him  and  send  him  contributions 
through  Epaphroditus,  besides  other  communications  which 
seem  to  have  preceded  the  Epistle.2 

On  the  other  hand,  the  priority  of  the  composition  of  Philip- 
pians has  been  recently  urged  on  purely  internal  evidence, 
namely,  its  doctrinal  affinity  with  the  preceding  anti-Judaic 
Epistles ; while  Colossians  and  Ephesians  presuppose  the  rise  of 

1 So  Bottger,  Thiersch,  Reuss,  Meyer,  Weiss.  Thiersch  dates  even  Second 
Timothy  from  Caesarea,  but  denies  the  second  Roman  captivity. 

2 This  is  the  prevailing  view  among  critics.  I have  discussed  the  order  in 
the  History  of  the  Apost.  Oh.  (1853),  pp.  322  sqq. 


§ 94.  THE  EPISTLE  TO  TIIE  COLOSSIANS. 


769 


the  Gnostic  heresy  and  thus  form  the  connecting  link  between 
them  and  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  in  which  the  same  heresy  ap- 
pears in  a more  matured  form.1  But  Ephesians  has  likewise 
striking  affinities  in  thought  and  language  with  Romans  in  the 
doctrine  of  justification  (comp.  Eph.  2 : 8),  and  with  Romans 
(ch.  12)  and  First  Corinthians  (12  and  14)  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  church.  As  to  the  heresy,  Paul  had  predicted  its  rise  in 
Asia  Minor  several  years  before  in  his  farewell  to  the  Ephesian 
elders.  And,  finally,  the  grateful  and  joyful  tone  of  Philip- 
pians  falls  in  most  naturally  with  the  lofty  and  glorious  concep- 
tion of  the  church  of  Christ  as  presented  in  Ephesians. 


§ 94.  The  Epistle  to  the  Colossians . 

The  Churches  in  Phrygia. 

The  cities  of  Colossse,  Laodicea,  and  Hierapolis  are  mentioned 
together  as  seats  of  Christian  churches  in  the  closing  chapter  of 
Colossians,  and  the  Epistle  may  be  considered  as  being  addressed 
to  all,  for  the  apostle  directs  that  it  be  read  also  in  the  churches 
of  the  Laodiceans  (4 : 13-16).  They  were  situated  within  a few 
miles  of  each  other  in  the  valley  of  the  Lycns  (a  tributary  of 
the  Maeander)  in  Phrygia  on  the  borders  of  Lydia,  and  belonged, 
under  the  Roman  rule,  to  the  proconsular  province  of  Asia 
Minor. 

Laodicea  was  the  most  important  of  the  three,  and  enjoyed 
metropolitan  rank ; she  was  destroyed  by  a disastrous  earth- 
quake a.d.  61  or  65,  but  rebuilt  from  her  own  resources  without 
the  customary  aid  from  Rome.2  The  church  of  Laodicea  is  the 
last  of  the  seven  churches  addressed  in  the  Apocalypse  (3  : 14r- 

1 So  Lightfoot  (p.  31),  followed  by  Farrar  (II.  417).  Ewald  likewise  pats 
Philippians  before  Colossians,  but  denies  the  genuineness  of  Ephesians.  Bleek 
regards  the  data  as  insufficient  to  decide  the  chronological  order.  See  his 
Einleitung , p.  461,  and  his  posthumous  Lectures  on  Colossians , Philemon , 
and  Ephesians , published  1865,  p.  7. 

2 The  earthquake  took  place,  according  to  Tacitus  (Ann.,  XXV.  27),  in  the 
seventh,  according  to  Eusebius  (Chron.,  Ol.  210,  4),  in  the  tenth  year  of  Nero’s 
reign,  and  extended  also  to  Hierapolis  and  Colossse. 


770 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


22),  and  is  described  as  rich  and  proud  and  lukewarm.  It  har- 
bored in  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  (after  344)  a council 
which  passed  an  important  act  on  the  canon,  forbidding  the 
public  reading  of  any  but  uthe  canonical  books  of  the  New 
and  Old  Testaments  ” (the  list  of  these  books  is  a later  addition), 
a prohibition  which  was  confirmed  and  adopted  by  later  coun- 
cils in  the  East  and  the  West. 

Ilierapolis  was  a famous  watering-place,  surrounded  by  beau- 
tiful scenery,1  and  the  birthplace  of  the  lame  slave  Epictetus, 
who,  with  Seneca  and  Marcus  Aurelius,  ranks  among  the  first 
heathen  moralists,  and  so  closely  resembles  the  lofty  maxims  of 
the  New  Testament  that  some  writers  have  assumed,  though 
without  historic  foundation,  a passing  acquaintance  between 
him  and  Paul  or  his  pupil  Epapliras  of  Colossse.2  The  church 
of  Hierapolis  figures  in  the  post-apostolic  age  as  the  bishopric 
of  Papias  (a  friend  of  Polycarp)  and  Apollinaris. 

Colossse,3  once  likewise  famous,  was  at  the  time  of  Paul  the 
smallest  of  the  three  neighboring  cities,  and  has  almost  disap- 

1 In  a Greek  inscription,  published  by  Boeckh  and  quoted  by  Lightfoot, 
Hierapolis  is  thus  apostrophized  : 

“ Hail,  fairest  soil  in  all  broad  Asia’s  realm; 

Hail,  goiden  city,  nymph  divine,  bedeck’d 
With  flowing  rills,  thy  jewels.” 

* Epictetus  (’ Ew'ikttitos ),  a slave  and  then  a freedman  of  Epaphroditus  (who 
was  himself  a freedman  of  Nero),  was  considerably  younger  than  Paul,  and 
taught  first  at  Rome,  and,  after  the  expulsion  of  the  philosophers  by  Domitian, 
at  Nicopolis  in  Epirus,  where  his  discourses  ( Enchiridion ) were  taken  down  by 
Arrian.  For,  like  Socrates,  he  himself  wrote  nothing.  A meeting  with  Paul 
or  Epaphras  would  ‘‘solve  more  than  one  riddle,”  as  Lightfoot  says.  But  he 
shows  no  trace  of  a knowledge  of  Christianity  any  more  than  Seneca,  whose 
correspondence  with  Paul  is  spurious,  though  both  lived  at  Rome  under  Nero. 
Marcus  Aurelius,  a century  later,  persecuted  the  Christians  and  alludes  to 
them  only  once  in  his  Meditations  (XI.  3),  where  he  traces  their  heroic  zeal 
for  martyrdom  to  sheer  obstinacy.  The  self-reliant,  stoic  morality  of  these 
philosophers,  sublime  as  it  is,  would  have  hindered  rather  than  facilitated 
their  acceptance  of  Christianity,  which  is  based  on  repentance  and  humility. 

a KoAo<r<raf,  Colossce , is  the  correct  reading  of  the  oldest  MSS.  against  the 
later  KoAa<r«rcu,  Golassce.  Herodotus  calls  it  tt6\is  /jLeydXij,  and  Xenophon  fv5alfxu» 
Kai  fie ya\rj.  In  the  middle  ages  it  was  called  Xwuai.  There  are  few  remains 
of  it  left  two  miles  north  of  the  present  town  of  Chonos,  which  is  inhabited 
by  Christians  and  Turks. 


§ 94.  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  COLOSSIANS. 


771 


peared  from  the  earth ; while  magnificent  ruins  of  temples, 
theatres,  baths,  aqueducts,  gymnasia,  and  sepulchres  still  testify 
to  the  former  wealth  and  prosperity  of  Laodicea  and  Ilierapolis. 
The  church  of  Colossae  was  the  least  important  of  the  churches 
to  which  Paul  addressed  an  Epistle,  and  it  is  scarcely  mentioned 
in  post-apostolic  times ; but  it  gave  rise  to  a heresy  which  shook 
the  church  in  the  second  century,  and  this  Epistle  furnished  the 
best  remedy  against  it. 

There  was  a large  Jewish  population  in  Phrygia,  since  Anti- 
ochus  the  Great  had  despotically  transplanted  two  thousand 
Jewish  families  from  Babylonia  and  Mesopotamia  to  that  region. 
It  thus  became,  in  connection  with  the  sensuous  and  mystic  ten- 
dency of  the  Phrygian  character,  a nursery  of  religious  syncret- 
ism and  various  forms  of  fanaticism. 

Paul  and  the  Colossians. 

Paul  passed  twice  through  Phrygia,  on  his  second  and  third 
missionary  tours,1  but  probably  not  through  the  valley  of  the 
Lycus.  Luke  does  not  say  that  he  established  churches  there, 
and  Paul  himself  seems  to  include  the  Colossians  and  Laodi 
ceans  among  those  who  had  not  seen  his  face  in  the  flesh.3  He 
names  Epaphras,  of  Colossse,  his  “dear  fellow-servant”  and 
“ fellow-prisoner,”  as  the  teacher  and  faithful  minister  of  the 
Christians  in  that  place.3  But  during  his  long  residence  in 
Ephesus  (a.d.  54-57)  and  from  his  imprisonment  he  exercised  a 
general  supervision  over  all  the  churches  in  Asia.  After  his 
death  they  passed  under  the  care  of  John,  and  in  the  second 
century  they  figure  prominently  in  the  Gnostic,  Paschal,  Chili- 
astic,  and  Montanistic  controversies. 

Paul  heard  of  the  condition  of  the  church  at  Colossse  through 
Epaphras,  his  pupil,  and  Onesimus,  a runaway  slave.  He  sent 

1 Acts  16  : 6 (r^v  $pvyiav  Kal  TaKariK^v  xc*>Pav)  j 18  : 23. 

5 Col.  2:1;  comp.  1 : 4,  8,  9 ; and  Lightfoot,  Com.,  pp.  23  sqq.  and  238. 

3 Col.  1:7;  4 : 12  ; comp.  Philem.,  ver.  23.  Hilgenfeld  (p.  663)  thinks  that 
Paul  founded  those  churches,  and  uses  this  as  an  argument  against  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  Epistle  which  implies  the  contrary.  But  how  easily  could  a 
forger  have  avoided  such  an  apparent  contradiction. 


772 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


through  Tychicus  (4:7)  a letter  to  the  church,  which  was  also 
intended  for  the  Laodiceans  (4  : 16) ; at  the  same  time  he  sent 
through  Onesirnus  a private  letter  of  commendation  to  his  mas- 
ter, Philemon,  a member  of  the  church  of  Colossae.  He  also 
directed  the  Colossians  to  procure  and  read  “the  letter  from 
Laodicea,”  which  is  most  probably  the  evangelical  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians  which  was  likewise  transmitted  through  Tychicus.* 
He  had  special  reasons  for  writing  to  the  Colossians  and  to 
Philemon,  and  a general  reason  for  writing  to  all  the  churches 
in  the  region  of  Ephesus ; and  he  took  advantage  of  the  mission 
of  Tychicus  to  secure  both  ends.  In  this  way  the  three  Epistles 
are  closely  connected  in  time  and  aim.  They  would  mutually 
explain  and  confirm  one  another. 

The  Colossian  Heresy. 

The  special  reason  which  prompted  Paul  to  write  to  the  Colos- 
sians was  the  rise  of  a new  heresy  among  them  which  soon 
afterward  swelled  into  a mighty  and  dangerous  movement  in  the 
ancient  church,  as  rationalism  has  done  in  modern  times.  It  dif- 
fered from  the  J udaizing  heresy  which  he  opposed  in  Galatians 
and  Corinthians,  as  Essenism  differed  from  Phariseeism,  or  as 
legalism  differs  from  mysticism.  The  Colossian  heresy  was  an 
Essenic  and  ascetic  type  of  Gnosticism ; it  derived  its  ritualistic 
and  practical  elements  from  Judaism,  its  speculative  elements 
from  heathenism;  it  retained  circumcision,  the  observance  of 
Sabbaths  and  new  moons,  and  the  distinction  of  meats  and 
drinks;  but  it  mixed  with  it  elements  of  oriental  mysticism 
and  theosophy,  the  heathen  notion  of  an  evil  principle,  the 
worship  of  subordinate  spirits,  and  an  ascetic  struggle  for 
emancipation  from  the  dominion  of  matter.  It  taught  an  an- 
tagonism between  God  and  matter  and  interposed  between  them 
a series  of  angelic  mediators  as  objects  of  worship.  It  thus 
contained  the  essential  features  of  Gnosticism,  but  in  its  in- 

1 Col.  4 : 16 : t^]v  he  Aaodi/eefas  Xva  leal  v/ieTs  ivayvoore.  An  abridged  expres- 
sion for  “the  letter  left  at  Laodicea  which  you  will  procure  thence.”  So 
Bleek  and  Lightfoot,  in  loco. 


§ 94.  THE  EPISTLE  TO  TIIE  COLOSSIANS. 


773 


cipient  and  rudimeiital  form,  or  a Christian  Essenism  in  its 
transition  to  Gnosticism.  In  its  ascetic  tendency  it  resembles 
that  of  the  weak  brethren  in  the  Roman  congregation  (Rom. 
14  : 5,  6, 21).  Cerintlms,  in  the  age  of  John,  represents  a more 
developed  stage  and  forms  the  link  between  the  Colossian  heresy 
and  the  post-apostolic  Gnosticism.1 

The  Refutation. 

Paul  refutes  this  false  philosophy  calmly  and  respectfully  by 
the  true  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  as  the  one  Mediator 
between  God  and  men,  in  whom  dwells  all  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead  bodily.  And  he  meets  the  false  asceticism  based 
upon  the  dualistic  principle  with  the  doctrine  of  the  purifica- 
tion of  the  heart  by  faith  and  love  as  the  effectual  cure  of  all 
moral  evil. 

The  Gnostic  and  the  Pauline  Pleroma. 

“ Pleroma  ” or  “ fulness  ” is  an  important  term  in  Colossians 
and  Ephesians.3  Paul  uses  it  in  common  with  the  Gnostics, 

1 On  the  Colossian  heresy  I refer  chiefly  to  Neander  (I.  319  sqq.),  the 
lectures  of  Bleek  (pp.  11-19),  and  the  valuable  Excursus  of  Lightfoot,  Com., 
pp.  73-113,  who  agrees  with  Neander  and  Bleek,  but  is  more  full.  Lightfoot 
refutes  the  view  of  Hilgenfeld  {Der  Gnosticismus  u.  das  N.  Test.,  in  the  44  Zeit- 
schrift  fiir  wissensch.  Theol.,”  vol.  XIII.  233  sqq.),  who  maintains  that  the 
Ep.  opposes  two  different  heresies,  pure  Gnosticism  (2  : 8-10)  and  pure  Judaism 
(2  : 16-23).  Comp,  his  Einleitung,  pp.  665  sqq.  The  two  passages  are  con- 
nected by  (Troix^a.  rov  kSctjuou  (vers.  8 and  20),  and  the  later  history  of 
Gnosticism  shows,  in  a more  developed  form,  the  same  strange  mixture  of 
Judaiziirg  and  paganizing  elements.  See  the  chapter  on  Gnosticism  in  the 
second  volume. 

2 The  word  'xX'^pwfia,  from  irXrjpovv,  to  fill,  to  complete,  occurs  eighteen  times 
in  the  New  Test.,  thirteen  times  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul  (see  Bruder).  It 
designates  the  result  of  the  action  implied  in  the  verb,  i.e .,  complement,  com- 
pleteness, plenitude,  perfection ; and,  in  a wider  sense  (as  in  John  1 : 16  ; 
Col.  1 : 19 ; 2:9),  fulness,  abundance.  Like  other  substantives  ending  in 
— A*a,  it  has  an  active  sense  : the  filling  substance,  that  which  fills  (id  quod 
implet,  or  id  quo  res  impletur).  So  it  is  often  used  by  the  classics,  e.g., 
nX’ftpu/j.a  iriXews,  the  population  of  a city ; in  the  Septuagint,  for  the  Hebrew 

abundance,  e.g.,  rb  irX'fjpto/ua  rrjs  yrjs,  or  rb  irX^poofxa  rrjs  ^aXd<ro"rjo.  that 
which  fills  the  earth,  or  the  sea;  and  in  the  New  Test.,  e.g.,  Mark  6 : 43 
(ko<P'ivuv  irXr]pu.p.ara) ; 8:20  (avvpfouv  ttX.).  The  passive  sense  is  rare:  that 


774 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


and  this  has  been  made  an  argument  for  the  post-apostolic 
origin  of  the  two  Epistles.  He  did,  of  course,  not  borrow  it 
from  the  Gnostics ; for  he  employs  it  repeatedly  in  his  other 
Epistles  with  slight  variations.  It  must  have  had  a fixed  theo- 
logical meaning,  as  it  is  not  explained.  It  cannot  be  traced  to 
Philo,  who,  however,  uses  “Logos”  in  a somewhat  similar  sense 
for  the  plenitude  of  Divine  powers. 

Paul  speaks  of  “ the  pleroma  of  the  earth,”  i.e .,  all  that  fills 
the  earth  or  is  contained  in  it  (1  Cor.  10  : 26,  28,  in  a quotation 
from  Ps.  24:1);  “ the  pleroma,”  i.e .,  the  fulfilment  or  accom- 
plishment, “ of  the  law,”  which  is  love  (Rom.  13  : 10  *)  ; “ the 
pleroma,”  i.e.,  the  fulness  or  abundance,  “ of  the  blessing  of 
Christ”  (Rom.  15:29);  “the  pleroma,”  or  full  measure,  “of 
the  time  ” (Gal.  4:4;  comp.  Eph.  1:10;  Mark  1 : 15  ; Luke 
21:24);  “the  pleroma  of  the  Gentiles,”  meaning  their  full 
number,  or  whole  body,  but  not  necessarily  all  individuals 
(Rom.  11 : 25) ; “ the  pleroma  of  the  Godhead,”  i.e.,  the  fulness 
or  plenitude  of  all  Divine  attributes  and  energies  (Col.  1:19; 
2:9);  “ the  pleroma  of  Christ,”  which  is  the  church  as  the  body 
of  Christ  (Eph.  1:23;  comp.  3:19;  4 : 13). 

In  the  Gnostic  systems,  especially  that  of  Valentinus,  “plero- 
ma” signifies  the  intellectual  and  spiritual  world,  including  all 
Divine  powers  or  aeons,  in  opposition  to  the  “ kenoma,”  i.e., 
the  void,  the  emptiness,  the  material  world.  The  distinction 
was  based  on  the  dualistic  principle  of  an  eternal  antagonism 
between  spirit  and  matter,  which  led  the  more  earnest  Gnos- 
tics to  an  extravagant  asceticism,  the  frivolous  ones  to  wild 
antinomianisrn.  They  included  in  the  pleroma  a succession  of 
emanations  from  the  Divine  abyss,  which  form  the  links  be- 
tween the  infinite  and  the  finite;  and  they  lowered  the  dignity 
of  Christ  by  making  him  simply  the  highest  of  those  interme- 
diate aeons.  The  burden  of  the  Gnostic  speculation  was  always 

which  is  filled  (id  quod  impletur  or  impletum  est).  the  filled  receptacle.  Comp 
Grimm  and  Robinson,  sub  vevbo , and  especially  Fritzsche,  Ad  Bom.  II.  469 
sqq.,  and  Lightfoot.  Coloss.  323  aqq. 

1 In  this  passage  it  is  equivalent  to  irKiipwais,  leg  is  observatio. 


§ 94.  TIIE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  COLOSSIANS. 


775 


the  question : Whence  is  the  world  ? and  whence  is  evil  ? It 
sought  the  solution  in  a dualism  between  mind  and  matter,  the 
pleroma  and  the  kenorna  ; but  this  is  no  solution  at  all. 

In  opposition  to  this  error,  Paul  teaches,  on  a thoroughly 
monotheistic  basis,  that  Christ  is  “ the  image  of  the  invisible 
God  ” (e'uccbv  tov  Seov  tov  doparov , 1:15;  comp.  2 Cor.  4 : 4 
— an  expression  often  used  by  Philo  as  a description  of  the 
Logos,  and  of  the  personified  Wisdom,  in  Wisd.  7 : 26);  that 
he  is  the  preexistent  and  incarnate  pleroma  or  plenitude  of 
Divine  powers  and  attributes ; that  in  him  the  whole  fulness 
of  the  Godhead,  that  is,  of  the  Divine  nature  itself,1  dwells 
bodily-wise  or  corporeally  (< tco/miti/ccos ),  as  the  soul  dwells  in 
the  human  body  ; and  that  he  is  the  one  universal  and  all- 
sufficient  Mediator,  through  whom  the  whole  universe  of  things, 
visible  and  invisible,  were  made,  in  whom  all  things  hold  to- 
gether (or  cohere,  avvearrjKev),  and  through  whom  the  Father 
is  pleased  to  reconcile  all  things  to  himself. 

The  Christology  of  Colossians  approaches  very  closely  to  the 
Christology  of  John ; for  he  represents  Christ  as  the  incarnate 
“ Logos”  or  Pevealer  of  God,  who  dwelt  among  us  “full 
( TrXTiprji ;)  of  grace  and  truth,”  and  out  of  whose  Divine  “ ful- 
ness” (ere  rov  7r\rjp(bfLaTO' ? clvtov)  we  all  have  received  grace 
for  grace  (John  1 : 1, 14,  16).  Paul  and  John  fully  agree  in 
teaching  the  eternal  preexistence  of  Christ,  and  his  agency  in 
the  creation  and  preservation  of  the  world  (Col.  1 : 15-17 ; John 
1 : 3).  According  to  Paul,  He  is  “ the  first-born  or  first-begot- 
tenof  all  creation  ( irpcoToroKO ? irdarj^  /crtVew?,  Col.  1 : 15, 
distinct  from  irpcoTo/cT to- to 9,  first -created),  i.e .,  prior  and  supe- 
rior to  the  whole  created  world,  or  eternal ; according  to  John 
He  is  “ the  only-begotten  Son  ” of  the  Father  (6  yovoyevr)*;  vm* 
John  1 : 14,  18 ; comp.  3 : 16,  18  ; 1 John  4 : 9),  before  and 
above  all  created  children  of  God.  The  former  term  denotes 

1 2 : 9 rb  -k x-fipu/xa  T7 )s  &c6ttjtos,  dei tax.  Deity , not  &ei6rriTos,  divinitas , divinity . 
Beng-el  remarks  : “ Non  modo  divincB  virtutes , sed  ipsa  divina  natura.”  So 
also  Lightfoot. 

- Or,  according  to  the  other  reading,  which  is  equally  well  supported,  fiouo • 
yctdl*  Sets,  one  who  is  only-begotten  God. 


776 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Christ’s  unique  relation  to  the  world,  the  latter  his  unique  rela* 
tion  to  the  Father. 

The  Pauline  authorship  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  will 
be  discussed  in  the  next  section  in  connection  with  the  Epistle 
to  the  Ephesians. 

Theme  : Christ  all  in  all.  The  true  gnosis  and  the  false  gnosis.  True 
and  false  asceticism. 

Leading  Thoughts:  Christ  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the 
first-begotten  of  all  creation  (1 : 15). — In  Christ  are  hidden  all  the  treas- 
ures of  wisdom  and  knowledge  (2  : 3). — In  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness 
(to  nXrjpoaiJici)  of  tne  Godhead  bodily  (2  : 9). — If  ye  were  raised  together 
with  Christ,  seek  the  things  that  are  above,  where  Christ  is,  seated  on 
the  right  hand  of  God  (3 : 1). — When  Christ,  who  is  our  life,  shall  be 
manifested,  then  shall  ye  also  with  him  be  manifested  in  glory  (3  : 4). — 
Christ  is  all,  and  in  all  (3 : 11). — Above  all  things  put  on  love,  which  is 
the  bond  of  perfectness  (3  : 14). — Whatsoever  ye  do,  in  word  or  in  deed, 
do  all  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  (3  : 17). 


§ 95.  The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians . 

Contents. 

When  Paul  took  leave  of  the  Ephesian  Elders  at  Miletus,  in 
the  spring  of  the  year  58,  he  earnestly  and  affectionately  ex- 
horted them,  in  view  of  threatening  disturbances  from  within, 
to  take  heed  unto  themselves  and  to  feed  “ the  church  of  the 
Lord,  which  he  acquired  with  his  own  blood.” 1 

This  strikes  the  key-note  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  It 
is  a doctrinal  and  practical  exposition  of  the  idea  of  the  church, 
as  the  house  of  God  (2  : 20-22),  the  spotless  bride  of  Christ 
(5  : 25-27),  the  mystical  body  of  Christ  (4  : 12-16),  “ the  fulness 

1 Acts  20 : 28.  Some  of  the  best  authorities  ($,  B,  Vulg.,  etc.)  read  “church 
of  God”  So  also  Westcott  and  Hort,  and  the  English  Revision;  but  the 
American  Committee  prefers,  with  Tischendorf , the  reading  rov  tcvplov,  which 
is  supported  by  A,  C*,  D,  E,  etc.,  and  suits  better  in  this  connection.  Paul 
often  speaks  of  “the  church  of  God,”  but  nowhere  of  “the  blood  of  God.” 
Possibly,  as  Dr.  Hort  suggests,  viov  may  have  dropped  out  in  a very  early  copy 
after  rod  ISlov.  See  a full  discussion  by  Dr.  Abbot,  in  “Bibl.  Sacra”  for 
1876,  pp.  313  sqq.  (for  Kvplov ),  and  by  Westcott  and  Hort,  Greek  Test.,  II., 
Notes,  pp.  98  sqq.  (for  beov). 


95.  TIIE  EPISTLE  TO  TIIE  EPHESIANS. 


777 


of  Him  that  filleth  all  in  all  ” (1 : 23).  The  pleroma  of  the 
Godhead  resides  in  Christ  corporeally  ; so  the  pleroma  of  Christ, 
the  plenitude  of  his  graces  and  energies,  resides  in  the  church,  as 
his  body.  Christ’s  fulness  is  God’s  fulness ; the  church’s  ful- 
ness is  Christ’s  fulness.  God  is  reflected  in  Christ,  Christ  is 
reflected  in  the  church. 

This  is  an  ideal  conception,  a celestial  vision,  as  it  were,  of 
the  church  in  its  future  state  of  perfection.  Paul  himself  repre- 
sents the  present  church  militant  as  a gradual  growth  unto  the 
complete  stature  of  Christ’s  fulness  (4  : 13-16).  We  look  in 
vain  for  an  actual  church  which  is  free  from  spot  or  wrinkle 
or  blemish  (5  : 27).  Even  the  apostolic  church  was  full  of  de- 
fects, as  we  may  learn  from  every  Epistle  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. The  church  consists  of  individual  Christians,  and  cannot 
be  complete  till  they  are  complete.  The  body  grows  and  matures 
with  its  several  members.  “ It  is  not  yet  made  manifest  what 
we  shall  be”  (1  John  3 : 2). 

Nevertheless,  Paul’s  church  is  not  a speculation  or  fiction, 
like  Plato’s  Pepublic  or  Sir  Thomas  More’s  Utopia.  It  is  a 
reality  in  Christ,  who  is  absolutely  holy,  and  is  spiritually  and 
dynamically  present  in  his  church  always,  as  the  soul  is  present 
in  the  members  of  the  body.  And  it  sets  before  us  the  high 
standard  and  aim  to  be  kept  constantly  in  view ; as  Christ  ex- 
horts every  one  individually  to  be  perfect,  even  as  our  heavenly 
Father  is  perfect  (Matt.  5 : 48). 

With  this  conception  of  the  church  is  closely  connected  Paul’s 
profound  and  most  fruitful  idea  of  the  family.  He  calls  the  re- 
lation of  Christ  to  his  church  a great  mystery  (5  : 32),  and  rep- 
resents it  as  the  archetype  of  the  marriage  relation,  whereby 
one  man  and  one  woman  become  one  flesh.  He  therefore  bases 
the  family  on  new  and  holy  ground,  and  makes  it  a miniature 
of  the  church,  or  the  household  of  God.  Accordingly,  husbands 
are  to  love  their  wives  even  as  Christ  loved  the  church,  his 
bride,  and  gave  himself  up  for  her;  wives  are  to  obey  their 
husbands  as  the  church  is  subject  to  Christ,  the  head ; parents 
are  to  love  their  children  as  Christ  and  the  church  love  the  in- 


77 8 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


dividual  Christians ; children  are  to  love  their  parents  as  indi- 
vidual Christians  are  to  love  Christ  and  the  church.  The  full 
and  general  realization  of  this  domestic  ideal  would  be  heaven 
on  earth.  But  how  few  families  come  up  to  this  standard.1 

Ephesians  and  the  Writings  of  John. 

Paul  emphasizes  the  person  of  Christ  in  Colossians,  the  per- 
son and  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  Ephesians.  For  the  Holy 
Spirit  carries  on  the  work  of  Christ  in  the  church.  Christians 
are  sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise  unto  the  day  of  re- 
demption (1:13;  4 : 30).  The  spirit  of  wisdom  and  revelation 
imparts  the  knowledge  of  Christ  (1:17;  3:16).  Christians 
should  be  filled  with  the  Spirit  (5  : 18),  take  the  sword  of  the 
Spirit,  which  is  the  word  of  God,  and  pray  in  the  Spirit  at  all 
seasons  (6  : 17,  18). 

The  pneumatology  of  Ephesians  resembles  that  of  John,  as 
the  christology  of  Colossians  resembles  the  christology  of  John. 
It  is  the  Spirit  who  takes  out  of  the  “ fulness”  of  Christ,  and 
shows  it  to  the  believer,  who  glorifies  the  Son  and  guides  into 
the  truth  (John  14:17;  15:26;  16 : 13-15,  etc.).  Great  promi- 
nence is  given  to  the  Spirit  also  in  Homans,  Galatians,  Corin- 
thians, and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

John  does  not  speak  of  the  church  and  its  outward  organiza- 
tion (except  in  the  Apocalypse),  but  he  brings  Christ  in  as  close 
and  vital  a contact  with  the  individual  disciples  as  Paul  with 
the  whole  body.  Both  teach  the  unity  of  the  church  as  a 
fact,  and  as  an  aim  to  be  realized  more  and  more  by  the  effort 
of  Christians,  and  both  put  the  centre  of  unity  in  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

1 For  a fine  analysis  of  the  Epistle,  I refer  to  Braune’s  Com.  in  the  Lange 
Series  (translated  by  Dr.  Riddle).  He  adopts  a twofold,  Stier  and  Alford  a 
threefold  (trinitarian)  division.  See  also  Dr.  Riddle’s  clear  analysis  in  Sehaff’s 
Popular  Com.  on  the  New  Test.,  III.  (1882).  p.  355.  I.  Doctrinal  Part,  chs.  1-3  : 
The  church,  the  mystical  body  of  Christ,  chosen,  redeemed,  and  united  in 
Christ  II.  Practical  Part.  chs.  4-fi  : Therefore,  let  all  the  members  of  the 
church  walk  in  unity,  in  love,  in  newness  of  life,  in  the  armor  of  God.  But 
we  should  remember  that  the  Epistle  is  not  strictly  systematic,  and  the  doc- 
trinal expositions  and  practical  exhortations  interlace  each  other. 


§ 95.  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  EPHESIANS. 


779 


Encyclical  Intent. 

Ephesians  was  intended  not  only  for  the  church  at  Ephesus, 
the  metropolis  of  Asia  Minor,  but  for  all  the  leading  churches 
of  that  district.  Hence  the  omission  of  the  words  “ in  Ephe- 
sus” (1 : 1)  in  some  of  the  oldest  and  best  MSS.1  Hence,  also, 
the  absence  of  personal  and  local  intelligence.  The  encyclical 
destination  may  be  inferred  also  from  the  reference  in  Col.  4:16 
to  the  Epistle  to  the  church  of  Laodicea,  which  the  Colossians 
were  to  procure  and  to  read,  and  which  is  probably  identical 
with  our  canonical  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.” 2 3 

Character  and  Value  of  the  Epistle. 

Ephesians  is  the  most  churchly  book  of  the  New  Testament. 
But  it  presupposes  Colossians,  the  most  Christly  of  Paul’s  Epis- 
tles. Its  cliurchliness  is  rooted  and  grounded  in  Christliness,  and 
has  no  sense  whatever  if  separated  from  this  root.  A church  with- 
out Christ  would  be,  at  best,  a praying  corpse  (and  there  are  such 
churches).  Paul  was  at  once  the  highest  of  high  churchmen, 
the  most  evangelical  of  evangelicals,  and  the  broadest  of  the 
broad,  because  most  comprehensive  in  his  grasp  and  furthest 
removed  from  all  pedantry  and  bigotry  of  sect  or  party. 

Ephesians  is,  in  some  respects,  the  most  profound  and  diffi- 


1 4u  *E<£>f<ry  is  omitted  in  the  Sinaitic  and  Vatican  MSS.  Marcion  retained 
the  Epistle  under  the  title  “ To  the  Laodicenes,”  as  Tertullian  reports.  Dr. 
Hort  says:  “Transcriptional  evidence  strongly  supports  the  testimony  of 
documents  against  iv  ’E <£e<ry.”  The  arguments  of  Meyer  and  of  Woldemar 
Schmidt  (in  the  fifth  ed.  of  Meyer  on  Ephesians)  in  favor  of  the  words  are 
not  conclusive. 

s This  was  already  the  view  of  Marcion  in  the  second  century.  Meyer, 
however,  in  loc.,  insists  that  another  letter  is  meant,  which  was  lost,  like  one 
to  the  Corinthians  The  apocryphal  Ep.  to  the  Laodiceans  (in  Fabricius, 
Cod.  Apocr.  AT.  7*.,  I.  873  sqq.),  consisting  of  twenty  verses,  is  a mere  fabrica- 
tion from  the  other  Epistles  of  Paul.  It  was  forbidden  by  the  Second  Council 
of  Nicaea  (787). 

3 But  the  very  reverse  of  churchy . Nothing  can  be  farther  removed  from 
the  genius  of  Paul  than  that  narrow,  mechanical,  and  pedantic  churcliiness 
which  sticks  to  the  shell  of  outward  forms  and  ceremonies,  and  mistakes  them 
for  the  kernel  within. 


780 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


cult  (though  not  the  most  important)  of  his  Epistles.  It  certainly 
is  the  most  spiritual  and  devout,  composed  in  an  exalted  and 
transcendent  state  of  mind,  where  theology  rises  into  worship, 
and  meditation  into  oration.  It  is  the  Epistle  of  the  Heaven- 
lies  ( rd  eirovpdvLa ),  a solemn  liturgy,  an  ode  to  Christ  and  his 
spotless  bride,  the  Song  of  Songs  in  the  New  Testament.  The 
aged  apostle  soared  high  above  all  earthly  things  to  the  invis 
ible  and  eternal  realities  in  heaven.  From  his  gloomy  confine- 
ment he  ascended  for  a season  to  the  mount  of  transfiguration. 
The  prisoner  of  Christ,  chained  to  a heathen  soldier,  was  trans- 
formed into  a conqueror,  clad  in  the  panoply  of  God,  and  sing- 
ing a paean  of  victory. 

The  style  has  a corresponding  rhythmical  flow  and  overflow, 
and  sounds  at  times  like  the  swell  of  a majestic  organ.1  It  is 
very  involved  and  presents  unusual  combinations,  but  this  is 
owing  to  the  pressure  and  grandeur  of  ideas ; besides,  wre  must 
remember  that  it  was  written  in  Greek,  which  admits  of  long 
periods  and  parentheses.  In  ch.  1 : 3-14  we  have  one  sentence 
with  no  less  than  seven  relative  clauses,  which  rise  like  a thick 
cloud  of  incense  higher  and  higher  to  the  very  throne  of  God.a 

1 Ch.  5 : 14  may  be  a part  of  a primitive  hymn  after  the  type  of  Hebrew 
parallelism : 

“Awake  thou  that  sleepest, 

Arise  thou  from  the  dead  : 

And  Christ  will  shine  upon  thee.” 

2 In  literal  English  translation  such  a st  ntence  is  unquestionably  heavy  and 
cumbrous.  Unsympathetic  critics,  like  De  Wette,  Baur,  Renan,  Holtzmann, 
characterize  the  style  of  Ephesians  as  verbose,  diffuse,  overloaded,  monoto- 
nous, and  repetitious.  But  Grotius,  a first-class  classical  scholar,  describes  it 
(in  his  Preface)  as  “ rerum  sublimitatem  adcequans  verbis  sublimioribus  quam 
utta  habuit  unquam  lingua  humana .”  Harless  asserts  that  not  a single  word 
in  the  Epistle  is  superfluous,  and  has  proved  it  in  his  very  able  commentary. 
Alford  (III.  25)  remarks  : “As  the  wonderful  effect  of  the  Spirit  of  inspira- 
tion on  the  mind  of  man  is  nowhere  in  Scripture  more  evident  than  in  this 
Epistle,  so,  to  discern  those  things  of  the  Spirit,  is  the  spiritual  mind  here 
more  than  anywhere  required.”  He  contrasts,  under  this  view,  the  commen- 
taries of  DeWette  and  Stier,  putting  rather  too  high  an  estimate  on  the  latter. 
Maurice  (Unity  of  the  N.  T.,  p.  535) : “Every  one  must  be  conscious  of  an 
overflowing  fulness  in  the  style  of  this  Epistle,  as  if  the  apostle’s  mind  could 
not  contain  the  thoughts  that  were  at  work  in  him,  as  if  each  one  that  he 
uttered  had  a luminous  train  before  it  and  behind  it,  from  which  it  could  not 


§ 95.  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  EPHESIANS. 


781 


Lutlier  reckoned  Ephesians  among  “ the  best  and  noblest 
books  of  the  New  Testament.”  Witsius  characterized  it  as  a 
divine  Epistle  glowing  with  the  flame  of  Christian  love  and  the 
splendor  of  holy  light.  Braune  says : “ The  exalted  significance 
of  the  Epistle  for  all  time  lies  in  its  fundamental  idea : the 
church  of  Jesus  Christ  a creation  of  the  Father  through  the 
Son  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  decreed  from  eternity,  destined  for 
eternity  ; it  is  the  ethical  cosmos ; the  family  of  God  gathered 
in  the  world  and  in  history  and  still  further  to  be  gathered,  the 
object  of  his  nurture  and  care  in  time  and  in  eternity.” 

These  are  Continental  judgments.  English  divines  are 
equally  strong  in  praise  of  this  Epistle.  Coleridge  calls  it  “ the 
sublimest  composition  of  man  ;”  Alford : “the  greatest  and  most 
heavenly  work  of  one  whose  very  imagination  is  peopled  with 
things  in  the  heavens ; ” Farrar : “ the  Epistle  of  the  Ascension, 
the  most  sublime,  the  most  profound,  and  the  most  advanced 
and  final  utterance  of  that  mystery  of  the  gospel  which  it  was 
given  to  St.  Paul  for  the  first  time  to  proclaim  in  all  its  fulness 
to  the  Gentile  world.” 

Theme  : The  church  of  Christ,  the  family  of  God,  the  fulness  of  Christ. 

Leading  Thoughts  : God  chose  us  in  Christ  before  the  foundation  of 
the  world  that  we  should  be  holy  and  without  blemish  before  him  in 
love  (1:4).  In  him  we  have  our  redemption  through  his  blood,  the 
forgiveness  of  our  trespasses,  according  to  the  riches  of  his  grace  (1:7). 
He  purposed  to  sum  up  all  things  in  Christ,  the  things  in  the  heavens, 
and  the  things  upon  the  earth  (1  : 10).  God  gave  him  to  be  head  over 
all  things  to  the  church,  which  is  his  body,  the  fulness  of  him  that 
filleth  all  in  all  (1  : 23).  God,  being  rich  in  mercy,  quickened  us 
together  with  Christ  and  raised  us  up  with  him,  and  made  us  to  sit 
with  him  in  the  heavenly  places , in  Christ  Jesus  (2  : 4-6).  By  grace 
have  ye  been  saved  through  faith ; and  that  not  of  yourselves : it  is 
the  gift  of  God : not  of  works,  that  no  man  should  glory  (2  : 8,  9). 

disengage  itself.”  Bishop  Ellicott  says  that  the  difficulties  of  the  first  chap- 
ter are  “ so  great  and  so  deep  that  the  most  exact  language  and  the  most 
discriminating  analysis  are  too  poor  and  too  weak  to  convey  the  force  or  con- 
nection of  expressions  so  august,  and  thoughts  so  unspeakably  profound.” 
Dr.  Riddle : ‘‘  It  is  the  greatness  of  the  Epistle  which  makes  it  so  difficult ; 
the  thought  seems  to  struggle  with  the  words,  which  seem  insufficient  to 
convey  the  transcendent  idea.” 


782 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Christ  is  our  peace,  who  made  both  one,  and  broke  down  the  mid- 
dle wall  of  partition  (2  : 14).  Ye  are  no  more  strangers  and  sojourn- 
ers, but  ye  are  fellow-citizens  with  the  saints,  and  of  the  household  of 
God,  being  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets, 
Christ  Jesus  himself  being  the  chief  corner  stone  (2  : 19,  20;.  Unto  me, 
who  am  less  than  the  least  of  all  saints,  was  this  grace  given,  to  preach 
unto  the  Gentiles  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ  (3:8).  That  Christ 
may  dwell  in  your  hearts  through  faith ; to  the  end  that  ye,  being  rooted 
and  grounded  in  love,  may  be  strong  to  apprehend  with  all  the  saints 
what  is  the  breadth  and  length  and  height  and  depth,  and  to  know  the 
love  of  Christ  which  passeth  knowledge,  that  ye  may  be  filled  unto  all 
the  fulness  of  God  (3  : 17-19).  Give  diligence  to  keep  the  unity  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace  (4:3).  There  is  one  body,  and  one  Spirit, 
one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is  over 
all,  and  through  all,  and  in  all  (4  : 6).  He  gave  some  to  be  apostles ; and 
some,  prophets ; and  some,  pastors  and  teachers  for  the  perfecting  of 
the  saints  (4  : 11,  12).  Speak  the  truth  in  love  (4  : 15).  Put  on  the  new 
man,  which  after  God  hath  been  created  in  righteousness  and  holiness 
of  truth  (4  : 24).  Be  ye  therefore  imitators  of  God,  as  beloved  children, 
and  walk  in  love,  even  as  Christ  also  loved  you,  and  gave  himself  up  for 
us,  an  offering  and  a sacrifice  to  God  for  an  odor  of  a sweet  smell  (5  : 1,  2). 
Wives,  be  in  subjection  unto  your  own  husbands,  as  unto  the  Lord  (5  : 22). 
Husbands,  love  your  wives,  even  as  Christ  also  loved  the  church,  and 
gave  himself  up  for  it  (5  : 25).  This  mystery  is  great ; but  I speak  in 
regard  of  Christ  and  of  the  church  (5  : 32).  Children,  obey  your  parents 
in  the  Lord  (6  : 1).  Put  on  the  whole  armor  of  God,  that  ye  may  be  able 
to  stand  against  the  wiles  of  the  devil  (6  : 11). 


§ 96.  Colossians  and  Ephesians  Compared  and  Vindicated. 

Comparison. 

The  Epistles  to  the  Colossians  and  Ephesians  were  written 
about  the  same  time  and  transmitted  through  the  same  mes- 
senger, Tycliicus.  They  are  as  closely  related  to  each  other  as 
the  Epistles  to  the  Galatians  and  to  the  Homans.  They  handle 
the  same  theme,  Christ  and  his  church ; as  Galatians  and 
Romans  discuss  the  same  doctrines  of  salvation  by  free  grace 
and  justification  by  faith. 

But  Colossians,  like  Galatians,  arose  from  a specific  emer- 
gency, and  is  brief,  terse,  polemical ; while  Ephesians,  like 
Romans,  is  expanded,  calm,  irenical.  Colossians  is  directed 


§ 96.  COLOSSIANS  AND  EPHESIANS  COMPARED.  783' 


against  the  incipient  Gnostic  (paganizing)  heresy,  as  Galatians 
is  directed  against  the  Judaizing  heresy.  The  former  is  anti- 
Essenic  and  anti-ascetic,  the  latter  is  anti-Pharisaic  and  anti- 
legalistic  ; the  one  deals  with  a speculative  expansion  and 
fantastic  evaporation,  the  latter,  with  a bigoted  contraction,  of 
Christianity;  yet  both  these  tendencies,  like  all  extremes,  have 
points  of  contact  and  admit  of  strange  amalgamations ; and  in 
fact  the  Colossian  and  Galatian  errorists  united  in  their  cere- 
monial observance  of  circumcision  and  the  Sabbath.  Ephesians, 
like  Romans,  is  an  independent  exposition  of  the  positive  truth, 
of  which  the  heresy  opposed  in  the  other  Epistles  is  a perversion 
or  caricature. 

Again,  Colossians  and  Ephesians  differ  from  each  other  in 
the  modification  and  application  of  their  common  theme : Colos- 
sians is  christological  and  represents  Christ  as  the  true  jpleroma 
or  plenitude  of  the  Godhead,  the  totality  of  divine  attributes 
and  powers ; Ephesians  is  ecclesiological  and  exhibits  the  ideal 
church  as  the  body  of  Christ,  as  the  reflected  jjleroma  of  Christ, 
“ the  fulness  of  Him  who  filleth  all  in  all.”  Christology  natur- 
ally precedes  ecclesiology  in  the  order  of  the  system,  as  Christ 
precedes  the  church ; and  Colossians  preceded  Ephesians  most 
probably  also  in  the  order  of  composition,  as  the  outline  pre- 
cedes the  full  picture ; but  they  were  not  far  apart,  and  arose 
from  the  same  train  of  meditation.1 

This  relationship  of  resemblance  and  contrast  can  be  satisfac- 
torily explained  only  on  the  assumption  of  the  same  authorship, 
the  same  time  of  composition,  and  the  same  group  of  churches 

1 Lardner,  Credner,  Mayerhoff,  Hofmann,  and  Reuss  reverse  the  order  on 
the  ground  of  Col.  4 : 16,  which  refers  to  “the  Epistle  from  Laodicea,”  as- 
suming that  this  is  the  encyclical  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  But  Paul  may 
have  done  that  by  anticipation.  On  the  other  hand,  the  /cal  vg.e7s  (that  ye  also 
as  well  as  those  to  whom  I have  just  written)  in  Eph.  6 : 21,  as  compared  with 
Col.  4 : 7,  justifies  the  opposite  conclusion  (as  Harless  shows,  Com.,  p.  lix). 
Reuss  thinks  that  in  writing  two  letters  on  the  same  topic  the  second  is  apt 
to  be  the  shorter.  But  the  reverse  is  more  frequent,  as  a second  edition  of  a 
book  is  usually  larger  than  the  first.  DeWette,  Baur,  Hilgenfeld,  and  Holtz- 
rnann  regard  Ephesians  as  an  enlarged  recasting  ( Umarbeitung  and  Ueberar* 
beitung)  of  Colossians  by  a pupil  of  Paul. 


784 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


endangered  by  the  same  heretical  modes  of  thought.  With 
Paul  as  the  author  of  both  everything  is  clear ; without  that 
assumption  everything  is  dark  and  uncertain.  “ Non  est  cuius- 
vis  hominis”  says  Erasmus,  “ Paulinum  'pectus  effingere  / tonat, 
f ulgur at,  meras  fiammas  loquitur  Paukis” 1 

Authorship. 

The  genuineness  of  the  two  cognate  Epistles  has  recently 
been  doubted  and  denied,  but  the  negative  critics  are  by  no 
means  agreed  ; some  surrender  Ephesians  but  retain  Colossians, 
others  reverse  the  case ; while  Baur,  always  bolder  and  more 
consistent  than  his  predecessors,  rejects  both.2 

1 Annot.  ad  Col.  4:16. 

2 DeWette  first  attacked  Ephesians  as  a verbose  expansion  (wortreiche  Er- 
weiterung)  of  the  genuine  Colossians  by  a pupil  of  Paul.  See  his  Introd.  to  the 
New  Test.  (1826,  6th  ed.  by  Messner  and  Lunemann,  1860,  pp.  313  sqq.,  and  es- 
pecially his  Com.  on  Eph.,  1843  and  1847).  He  based  his  doubts  chiefly  on  the 
apparent  dependence  of  Ephesians  on  Colossians,  and  could  not  appreciate  the 
originality  and  depth  of  Ephesians.  Mayerhoff  first  attacked  Colossians  (1838) 
as  a post -Pauline  abridgment  of  Ephesians  which  he  regarded  as  genuine.  Baur 
attacked  both  (1845),  as  his  pupil  Schwegler  did  (1846),  and  assigned  them  to 
an  anti-Gnostic  writer  of  the  later  Pauline  school.  He  was  followed  by  Hilgen- 
feld  (1870,  1873,  and  1875).  Hitzig  proposed  a middle  view  (1870),  that  a 
genuine  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Colossians  was  enlarged  and  adapted  by  the 
same  author  who  wrote  Ephesians,  and  this  view  was  elaborately  carried  out 
by  Holtzmann  with  an  attempt  to  reconstruct  the  Pauline  original  ( Kritik  dcr 
Epheser-  und  Kolosserbriefe,  Leipzig,  1872).  But  the  assumption  of  another 
Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Colossians  is  a pure  critical  fiction.  History  knows  only 
of  one  such  Epistle.  Pfleiderer  (1873,  Paulinismus , p.  370  sq.  and  434)  substan- 
tially agrees  with  Holtzmann,  but  assumes  two  different  authors  for  the  two 
Epistles.  He  regards  Ephesians  as  an  advance  from  old  Paulinism  to  the 
Johannean  theology.  Renan  and  Ewald  admit  Colossians  to  be  genuine,  but 
surrender  Ephesians,  assigning  it,  however,  to  an  earlier  date  than  the 
Tubingen  critics  (Ewald  to  a.d.  75  or  80).  On  the  other  hand,  the  genuine- 
ness of  both  Epistles  has  been  ably  defended  by  Bleek,  Meyer,  Woldemar 
Schmidt,  Braune,  Weiss,  Alford,  Farrar.  Bishop  Lightfoot,  in  his  Com.  on 
Col. , promises  to  take  the  question  of  genuineness  up  in  the  Com.  on  Ephes. , 
which,  however,  has  not  yet  appeared.  Dr.  Samuel  Davidson,  in  the  revised 
edition  of  his  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  New  Test.  (1882,  vol.  II.  176 
sqq.  and  205  sqq.),  reproduces  the  objections  of  the  Tubingen  critics,  and 
adds  some  new  ones  which  are  not  very  creditable  to  his  judgment,  e.g ., 
Paul  could  not  warn  the  Ephesians  to  steal  no  more  (4  : 28),  and  not  to  be 
drunk  (5  : 18),  because  “the  Christians  of  Asia  Minor  had  no  tendency  to 
drunken  excesses,  but  rather  to  ascetic  abstinence  from  wine  ; and  the  advice 


§ 96.  COLOSSIANS  AND  EPHESIANS  COMPARED.  785 


They  must  stand  or  fall  together.  But  they  will  stand.  They 
represent,  indeed,  an  advanced  state  of  christological  and  eccle- 
siological  knowledge  in  the  apostolic  age,  hut  they  have  their 
roots  in  the  older  Epistles  of  Paul,  and  are  brimful  of  his  spirit. 
They  were  called  forth  by  a new  phase  of  error,  and  brought 
out  new  statements  of  truth  with  new  words  and  phrases  adapted 
to  the  case.  They  contain  nothing  that  Paul  could  not  have 
written  consistently  with  his  older  Epistles,  and  there  is  no 
known  pupil  of  Paul  who  could  have  forged  such  highly  intel- 
lectual and  spiritual  letters  in  his  name  and  equalled,  if  not 
out-Pauled  Paul.1  The  external  testimonies  are  unanimous  in 
favor  of  the  Pauline  authorship,  and  go  as  far  back  as  Justin 
Martyr,  Polycarp,  Ignatius,  and  the  heretical  Marcion  (about 
140),  who  included  both  Epistles  in  his  mutilated  canon.2 

The  difficulties  which  have  been  urged  against  their  Pauline 
origin,  especially  of  Ephesians,  are  as  follows : 

1.  The  striking  resemblance  of  the  two  Epistles,  and  the  ap- 
parent repetitiousness  and  dependence  of  Ephesians  on  Colos- 
sians,  which  seem  to  be  unworthy  of  such  an  original  thinker  as 
Paul.3  But  this  resemblance,  which  is  more  striking  in  the 
practical  than  in  the  doctrinal  part,  is  not  the  resemblance  be- 
tween an  author  and  an  imitator,  but  of  two  compositions  of 

given  to  Timothy  might  perhaps  have  been  more  suitable  : ‘ Drink  a little 
wine’  ” (p.  213).  But  what  then  becomes  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
who  tolerated  an  incestuous  person  in  their  midst  and  disgraced  the  love  feasts 
by  intemperance  ? What  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  which  contains  a 
similar  warning  against  drunkenness  (13:13)?  And  what  co-id  induce  a 
pseudo-Paul  to  slander  the  church  at  Ephesus,  if  it  was  exceptionally  pure  ? 

1 Farrar  (II.  602)  : “We  might  well  be  amazed  if  the  first  hundred  years 
after  the  death  of  Christ  produced  a totally  unknown  writer  who,  assuming 
the  name  of  Paul,  treats  the  mystery  which  it  was  given  him  to  reveal  with  a 
masterly  power  which  the  apostle  himself  rarely  equalled,  and  most  certainly 
never  surpassed.  Let  any  one  study  the  remains  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  and 
he  may  well  be  surprised  at  the  facility  with  which  writers  of  the  Tubingen 
school,  and  their  successors,  assume  the  existence  of  Pauls  who  lived  unheard 
of  and  died  unknown,  though  they  were  intellectually  and  spiritually  the 
equals,  if  not  the  superiors,  of  St.  Paul  himself  ! ” 

2 See  the  quotations  in  Charteris’s  Canonicity , pp.  287  sqq  and  247  sqq. 

3 This  is  DeWette’s  chief  argument.  See  his  table  of  parallel  passages  in 
Einleitung , § 146a  (pp.  313-318  of  the  sixth  ed.). 


786 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


the  same  author,  written  about  the  same  time  on  two  closely 
connected  topics ; and  it  is  accompanied  by  an  equally  marked 
variety  in  thought  and  language. 

2.  The  absence  of  personal  and  local  references  in  Ephesians. 
This  is,  as  already  remarked,  sufficiently  explained  by  the  ency- 
clical character  of  that  Epistle. 

3.  A number  of  peculiar  words  not  found  elsewhere  in  the 
Pauline  Epistles.1  But  they  are  admirably  adapted  to  the  new 
ideas,  and  must  be  expected  from  a inind  so  rich  as  Paul’s. 
Every  Epistle  contains  some  hajpaxlegomena.  The  only  thing 
which  is  somewhat  startling  is  that  an  apostle  should  speak  of 
“ holy  apostles  and  prophets  ” (Eph.  3 : 5),  but  the  term  “ holy  ” 
(ayioi)  is  applied  in  the  New  Testament  to  all  Christians,  as 
being  consecrated  to  God  (ayiacrfievoi,  John  IT  : 17),  and  not  in 
the  later  ecclesiastical  sense  of  a spiritual  nobility.  It  implies 
no  contradiction  to  Eph.  3 : 8,  where  the  author  calls  himself 
“ the  least  of  all  saints”  (comp.  1 Cor.  15  : 9,  “I  am  the  least  of 
the  apostles”). 

4.  The  only  argument  of  any  weight  is  the  alleged  post- 
Pauline  rise  of  the  Gnostic  heresy,  which  is  undoubtedly 
opposed  in  Colossians  (not  in  Ephesians,  at  least  not  directly). 
But  why  should  this  heresy  not  have  arisen  in  the  apostolic  age 
as  well  as  the  Judaizing  heresy  which  sprung  up  before  a.d.  50, 
and  followed  Paul  everywhere  ? The  tares  spring  up  almost 
simultaneously  with  the  wheat.  Error  is  the  shadow  of  truth. 
Simon  Magus,  the  contemporary  of  Peter,  and  the  Gnostic 
Cerinthus,  the  contemporary  of  John,  are  certainly  historic 
persons.  Paul  speaks  (1  Cor.  8 : 1)  of  a “gnosis  which  puffeth 

1 Such  as  al<rxPo\oy(a  (Col.  3 : 8),  avravairXrjpdca  (1  : 24),  clprjvoiroi4(o  (1  : 20), 
f^6\o^pt](TK€ia  (2 : 23),  iriSavoKoyla  (2:4);  rh  4irovpdvia  (Eph.  1:3,  20  ; 2:6; 
3 : 10 ; 6 : 12),  ret  Tri/evuaTiKai  (6  : 12),  KO'rmoKp&Topes  (6  : 12),  ‘iroXinroliuXos  <ro<pla 
(3  : 10).  Even  the  word  &(f>c<ns  (Col.  1 : 14  and  Eph.  1:7)  for  irapetm  (Rom. 
3 : 25)  has  been  counted  among  the  strange  terms,  ns  if  Paul  had  not  known 
before  of  the  remission  of  sins  Iioltzmann  has  most  carefully  elaborated  the 
philological  argument.  But  the  veteran  Reuss  (I.  112)  treats  it  as  futile,  and 
even  Davidson  must  admit  'II  210)  that  “the  sentiments  (of  Ephesians)  are 
generally  Pauline,  as  well  as  the  diction,”  though  he  adds  that  “ both  betray 
marks  of  another  writer.” 


§ 96.  COLOSSIANS  AND  EPHESIANS  COMPARED.  787 


up,”  and  warned  the  Ephesian  elders,  as  early  as  58,  of  the 
rising  of  disturbing  errorists  from  their  own  midst ; and  the 
Apocalypse,  which  the  Tubingen  critics  assign  to  the  year  68, 
certainly  opposes  the  antinomian  type  of  Gnosticism,  the  error 
of  the  Nicolaitans  (2 : 6,  15,  20),  which  the  early  Fathers  de- 
rived from  one  of  the  first  seven  deacons  of  Jerusalem.  All 
the  elements  of  Gnosticism — Ebionism,  Platonism,  Pliiloism, 
syncretism,  asceticism,  antinomianism  — were  extant  before 
Christ,  and  it  needed  only  a spark  of  Christian  truth  to  set  the 
inflammable  material  on  fire.  The  universal  sentiment  of  the 
Fathers,  as  far  as  we  can  trace  it  up  to  Irenaeus,  Justin  Martyr, 
and  Polycarp  found  the  origin  of  Gnosticism  in  the  apostolic 
age,  and  called  Simon  Magus  its  father  or  grandfather. 

Against  their  testimony,  the  isolated  passage  of  Hegesippus, 
so  often  quoted  by  the  negative  critics,1  has  not  the  weight  of  a 
feather.  This  credulous,  inaccurate,  and  narrow-minded  Jewish 
Christian  writer  said,  according  to  Eusebius,  that  the  church  en- 
joyed profound  peace,  and  was  “ a pure  and  uncorrupted  vir- 
gin,” governed  by  brothers  and  relations  of  Jesus,  until  the  age 
of  Trajan,  when,  after  the  death  of  the  apostles,  “ the  knowl- 
edge falsely  so  called”  (yfrev^covv/io^  ryvwo-is,  comp.  1 Tim.  6 : 20), 
openly  raised  its  head.2  But  he  speaks  of  the  church  in  Pales- 
tine, not  in  Asia  Minor ; and  he  wras  certainly  mistaken  in  this 
dream  of  an  age  of  absolute  purity  and  peace.  The  Tubin- 
gen school  itself  maintains  the  very  opposite  view.  Every 

1 Baur,  Schwegler,  and  Hilgenfeld  ( Einleit .,  652  sq.). 

2 Eus.,  H.  E.,  III.  32  : “ The  same  author  [Hegesippus],  relating  the  events 
of  the  times,  also  says  that  4 the  church  continued  until  then  as  a pure  and 
uncorrupt  virgin  (it ao&euos  Ka&ctpa  ko\  a$id<p&opos  e/xevev  7?  iKKKrjala) ; whilst  if 
there  were  any  at  all  that  attempted  to  pervert  the  sound  doctrine  of  the 
saving  gospel,  they  were  yet  skulking  in  darkness  (cV  a5 T)\cp  irov  nnSra)  ; but 
when  the  sacred  choir  of  the  apostles  became  extinct,  and  the  generation  of 
those  that  had  been  privileged  to  hear  their  inspired  wisdom  had  passed  away, 
then  also  arose  the  combination  of  godless  error  through  the  fraud  of  false 
teachers.  These  also,  as  there  was  none  of  the  apostles  left,  henceforth 
attempted,  without  shame  (7 v/xvfj  \onrbv  tfUr)  tT/  Ke<f>a\r) ),  to  preach  their  falsely 
so-called  gnosis  against  the  gospel  of  truth.’  Such  is  the  statement  of  Hege- 
sippus.”  Comp,  the  notes  on  the  passage  by  Heinichen  in  his  ed.  of  Euseb., 
Tome  III.,  pp.  100-103. 


788 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Epistle,  as  well  as  the  Acts,  bears  testimony  to  the  profound 
agitations,  parties,  and  evils  of  the  church,  including  Jeru- 
salem, where  the  first  great  theological  controversy  was  fought 
out  by  the  apostles  themselves.  But  flegesippus  corrects  him 
self,  and  makes  a distinction  between  the  secret  working  and 
the  open  and  shameless  manifestation  of  heresy.  The  former 
began,  he  intimates,  in  the  apostolic  age ; the  latter  showed 
itself  afterward.1  Gnosticism,  like  modern  Rationalism,2  had 
a growth  of  a hundred  years  before  it  came  to  full  maturity. 
A post-apostolic  writer  would  have  dealt  very  differently  with 
the  fully  developed  systems  of  Basilides,  Yalentinus,  and  Mar- 
cion.  And  yet  the  two  short  Epistles  to  the  Colossians  and 
Ephesians  strike  at  the  roots  of  this  error,  and  teach  the  posi- 
tive truth  with  an  originality,  vigor,  and  depth  that  makes 
them  more  valuable,  even  as  a refutation,  than  the  five  books 
of  Irenseus  against  Gnosticism,  and  the  ten  books  of  the  Phil- 
osophuinena  of  Hippolytus;  and  this  patent  fact  is  the  best 
proof  of  their  apostolic  origin. 


§ 97.  The  Epistle  to  the  Philippians . 

The  Church  at  Philippi. 

Philippi  was  a city  of  Macedonia,  founded  by  and  called  after 
Philip,  the  father  of  Alexander  the  Great,  in  a fertile  region, 
with  contiguous  gold  and  silver  mines,  on  the  banks  of  a 
small  river  and  the  highway  between  Asia  and  Europe,  ten 
miles  from  the  seacoast.  It  acquired  immortal  fame  by  the 
battle  between  Brutus  and  Mark  Antony  (b.c.  42),  in  which  the 


1 The  same  Hegesippus,  in  Eus. , IV.  22,  places  the  rise  of  the  heresies  in 
the  Palestinian  church  immediately  after  the  death  of  James,  and  traces  some 
of  them  back  to  Simon  Magus.  He  was  evidently  familiar  with  the  Pastoral 
Epistles,  and  borrowed  from  them  the  terms  \f/ev8c6yvjuos  y vaxns,  irepodiSda-KaXoi^ 
vyi)js  KOLVUV. 

2 The  critical  school  of  Rationalism  began  in  Germany  with  Semler  of  Halle 
(1725-1791),  in  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  culminated  in  the 
Tubingen  School  of  our  own  age. 


§ 97.  THE  EPISTLE  TO  TIIE  PIIILIPPIANS. 


789 


Homan  republic  died  and  the  empire  was  born.  After  that 
event  it  had  the  rank  of  a Homan  military  colony,  with  the  high- 
sounding  title,  “ Colonia  Augusta  Julia  Philippensis.”  1 Hence 
its  mixed  population,  the  Greeks,  of  course,  prevailing,  next  the 
Roman  colonists  and  magistrates,  and  last  a limited  number  of 
Jews,  who  had  a place  of  prayer  on  the  riverside.  It  was  visited 
by  Paul,  in  company  with  Silas,  Timothy,  and  Luke,  on  his  second 
missionary  tour,  in  the  year  52,  and  became  the  seat  of  the  first 
Christian  congregation  on  the  classical  soil  of  Greece.  Lydia, 
the  purple  dealer  of  Thyatira  and  a half  proselyte  to  Judaism,  a 
native  slave-girl  with  a divining  spirit,  which  was  used  by  her 
masters  as  a means  of  gain  among  the  superstitious  heathen, 
and  a Homan  jailer,  were  the  first  converts,  and  fitly  represent 
the  three  nationalities  (Jew,  Greek,  and  Homan)  and  the  classes 
of  society  which  were  especially  benefited  by  Christianity.  “ In 
the  history  of  the  gospel  at  Philippi,  as  in  the  history  of  the 
church  at  large,  is  reflected  the  great  maxim  of  Christianity, 
the  central  truth  of  the  apostle’s  teaching,  that  here  is  ‘ neither 
Jew  nor  Greek,  neither  bond  nor  free,  neither  male  nor  female, 
but  all  are  one  in  Christ  Jesus.’  ” 2 Here,  also,  are  the  first  re- 
corded instances  of  whole  households  (of  Lydia  and  the  jailer) 
being  baptized  and  gathered  into  the  church,  of  which  the 
family  is  the  chief  nursery.  The  congregation  was  fully  organ- 
ized, with  bishops  (presbyters)  and  deacons  at  the  head  (Phil. 
1:1). 

Here  the  apostle  was  severely  persecuted  and  marvellously 
delivered.  Here  he  had  his  most  loyal  and  devoted  converts, 
who  were  his  “ joy  and  crown.”  For  them  he  felt  the  strongest 
personal  attachment ; from  them  alone  he  would  receive  contri- 
butions for  his  support.  In  the  autumn  of  the  year  57,  after 

1 Augustus  conferred  upon  Philippi  the  special  privilege  of  the  “jus  Itali- 
cum,”  which  made  it  a miniature  likeness  of  the  Roman  people,  with  k‘  prae- 
tors ” and  “ lictors,”  and  the  other  titles  of  the  Roman  magistrates.  Under  this 
character  the  city  appears  in  the  narrative  of  the  Acts  (16  : 12  sqq.),  where 
“the  pride  and  privilege  of  Roman  citizenship  confront  us  at  every  turn.” 
See  Lightfoot,  pp.  50  sqq.,  Braune,  and  Lumby. 

2 Lightfoot,  l.  c. , p.  53. 


790 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


five  years’  absence,  he  paid  a second  visit  to  Philippi,  having  in 
the  meantime  kept  up  constant  intercourse  with  the  congrega- 
tion through  living  messengers;  and  on  his  last  journey  to 
Jerusalem,  in  the  spring  of  the  following  year,  he  stopped  at 
Philippi  to  keep  the  paschal  feast  with  his  beloved  brethren. 
They  had  liberally  contributed  out  of  their  poverty  to  the  relief 
of  the  churches  in  Judsea.  When  they  heard  of  his  arrival  at 
Rome,  they  again  sent  him  timely  assistance  through  Epapliro- 
ditus,  who  also  offered  his  personal  services  to  the  prisoner  of 
the  Lord,  at  the  sacrifice  of  his  health  and  almost  his  life.  It 
was  through  this  faithful  fellow- worker  that  Paul  sent  his  letter 
of  thanks  to  the  Philippians,  hoping,  after  his  release,  to  visit 
them  in  person  once  more. 

The  Epistle. 

The  Epistle  reflects,  in  familiar  ease,  his  relations  to  this  be' 
loved  flock,  which  rested  on  the  love  of  Christ.  It  is  not  sys- 
tematic, not  polemic,  nor  apologetic,  but  personal  and  autobio- 
graphic, resembling  in  this  respect  the  First  Epistle  to  the 
Tliessalonians,  and  to  some  extent,  also,  the  Second  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians.  It  is  the  free  outflow  of  tender  love  and 
gratitude,  and  full  of  joy  and  cheerfulness  in  the  face  of  life 
and  death.  It  is  like  his  midnight  hymn  of  praise  in  the  dun- 
geon of  Philippi.  “Rejoice  in  the  Lord  alway;  again  I will 
say,  Rejoice  ” (4  : 4).1  This  is  the  key-note  of  the  letter.2  It 
proves  that  a healthy  Christian  faith,  far  from  depressing  and 
saddening  the  heart,  makes  truly  happy  and  contented  even  in 
prison.  It  is  an  important  contribution  to  our  knowledge  of 

1 xa'lPere  “ combines  a parting  benediction  with  an  exhortation  to  cheerful- 
ness. It  is  neither  ‘farewell’  alone,  nor  ‘rejoice’  alone”  (Lightfoot). 

2 Bengel : “ Summa Epistolas : Gaudeo,  gaudete.”  Farrar  (II.  423):  “If  any 
one  compare  the  spirit  of  the  best-known  classic  writers  in  their  adversity 
with  that  which  was  habitual  to  the  far  deeper  wrongs  and  far  deadlier  suffer- 
ings of  St.  Paul— if  he  will  compare  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  with  the 
'Tristia’  of  Ovid,  the  letters  of  Cicero  from  exile,  or  the  treatise  which 
Seneca  dedicated  to  Polybius  from  his  banishment  in  Corsica — he  may  see,  if 
he  will,  the  difference  which  Christianity  has  made  in  the  happiness  of 


§ 97.  TITE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  PHILIPPIANS.  791 


the  character  of  the  apostle.  In  acknowledging  the  gift  of  the 
Philippians,  he  gracefully  and  delicately  mingles  manly  inde- 
pendence and  gratitude.  He  had  no  doctrinal  error,  nor  prac- 
tical vice  to  rebuke,  as  in  Galatians  and  Corinthians. 

The  only  discordant  tone  is  the  warning  against  “ the  dogs  of 
the  concision”  ( Kararofii] , 3 : 2),  as  he  sarcastically  calls  the  cham- 
pions of  circumcision  (7 repiToybrj),  who  everywhere  sowed  tares 
in  his  wheat  fields,  and  at  that  very  time  tried  to  check  his  use- 
fulness in  Rome  by  substituting  the  righteousness  of  the  law 
for  the  righteousness  of  faith.  But  he  guards  the  readers  witli 
equal  earnestness  against  the  opposite  extreme  of  antinomian 
license  (3  : 12-21).  In  opposition  to  the  spirit  of  personal  and 
social  rivalry  and  contention  which  manifested  itself  among  the 
Philippians,  Paul  reminds  them  of  the  self-denying  example  of 
Christ,  who  was  the  highest  of  all,  and  yet  became  the  lowliest 
of  all  by  divesting  himself  of  his  divine  majesty  and  humbling 
himself,  even  to  the  death  on  the  cross,  and  who,  in  reward  for 
his  obedience,  was  exalted  above  every  name  (2  : 1-11). 

This  is  the  most  important  doctrinal  passage  of  the  letter, 
and  contains  (together  with  2 Cor.  8 : 9)  the  fruitful  germ  of  the 
speculations  on  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  kenosis , which 
figures  so  prominently  in  the  history  of  cliristology.1  It  is  a 
striking  example  of  the  apparently  accidental  occasion  of  some 
of  the  deepest  utterances  of  the  apostle.  “With  passages  full  of 
elegant  negligence  (1  : 29),  like  Plato’s  dialogues  and  Cicero’s 
letters,  it  has  passages  of  wonderful  eloquence,  and  proceeds 
from  outward  relations  and  special  circumstances  to  wide-reach- 
ing thoughts  and  grand  conceptions.”  2 

The  objections  against  the  genuineness  raised  by  a few  hyper- 
critics are  not  worthy  of  a serious  refutation.’ 

1 The  kenosis  controversy  between  the  Lutherans  of  Giessen  and  Tubingen 
in  the  early  part  of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  the  more  extensive  kenosis 
literature  in  the  nineteenth  century  (Thomasius,  Liebner,  Gess,  Godet,  etc.). 

2 Dr.  Braune,  in  Lange’s  Com. , p.  4. 

3 The  arguments  of  Baur  and  Schwegler  have  been  set  aside  by  Liinemann 
(1847),  Briickner  (1848),  Reseh  (1850),  Hilgenfeld  (1871),  and  Reuss(1875); 
those  of  Holsten  (1875  and  1876)  by  P.  W.  Schmidt,  Neutestam.  Hyperkritik, 
1880.  Comp.  Holzmann  in  Hilgenf eld’s  “ Zeitschrift  fiir  wiss.  Theol.,”  1881, 
98  sqq. 


792 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


The  Later  History. 

The  subsequent  history  of  the  church  at  Philippi  is  rathei 
disappointing,  like  that  of  the  other  apostolic  churches  in  the 
East.  It  appears  again  in  the  letters  of  Ignatius,  who  passed 
through  the  place  on  his  way  to  his  martyrdom  in  Rome,  and 
was  kindly  entertained  and  escorted  by  the  brethren,  and  in  the 
Epistle  of  Polycarp  to  the  Philippians,  who  expressed  his  joy 
that  “the  sturdy  root  of  their  faith,  famous  from  the  earliest 
days,  still  survives  and  bears  fruit  unto  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,” 
and  alludes  to  the  labors  of  “ the  blessed  and  glorious  Paul  ” 
among  them.  Tertullian  appeals  to  the  Philippian  church  as 
still  maintaining  the  apostle’s  doctrine  and  reading  his  Epistle 
publicly.  The  name  of  its  bishop  is  mentioned  here  and  there 
in  the  records  of  councils,  but  that  is  all.  During  the  middle 
ages  the  city  was  turned  into  a wretched  village,  and  the 
bishopric  into  a mere  shadow.  At  present  there  is  not  even  a 
village  on  the  site,  but  only  a caravansary,  a mile  or  more  from 
the  ruins,  which  consist  of  a theatre,  broken  marble  columns, 
two  lofty  gateways,  and  a portion  of  the  city  wall.1  “ Of  the 
church  which  stood  foremost  among  all  the  apostolic  communi- 
ties in  faith  and  love,  it  may  literally  be  said  that  not  one  stone 
stands  upon  another.  Its  whole  career  is  a signal  monument  of 
the  inscrutable  counsels  of  God.  Born  into  the  world  with  the 
brightest  promise,  the  church  of  Philippi  has  lived  without  a 
history  and  perished  without  a memorial.”  3 

But  in  Paul’s  Epistle  that  noble  little  band  of  Christians  still 
lives  and  blesses  the  church  in  distant  countries. 

1 Dr.  H.  B.  Hackett,  who  visited  the  spot,  corrects  the  false  statement  of 
Meyer  and  other  commentators  that  there  is  still  a village  (Felibah,  or  Filibid- 
jek,  as  Farrar  says)  on  the  former  site.  See  his  translation  of  Braune  on 
Phil. , p.  6. 

2 Lightfoot,  p.  64.  But  almost  the  same  sad  tale  may  be  told  of  the 
churches  of  Palestine,  Syria,  and  Asia  Minor,  under  the  withering  rule  of  the 
Mohammedan  Turks.  Even  Ephesus,  where  both  Paul  and  John  labored  so 
successfully,  is  little  more  than  a heap  of  ruins. 


§ 98.  THE  EPISTLE  TO  PHILEMON. 


793 


Theme  : Theological : The  self-humiliation  (kcvchtis)  of  Christ  for  our 
salvation  (2  : 5-11).  Practical : Christian  cheerfulness. 

Leading  Thoughts  : He  who  began  a good  work  in  you  will  perfect 
it  (1 : 6).  If  only  Christ  is  preached,  I rejoice  (1 : 13).  To  me  to  live  is 
Christ,  and  to  die  is  gain  (1:21).  Have  this  mind  in  you,  which  was 
also  in  Christ  Jesus : who  emptied  himself,  etc.  (2  : 5 sqq.).  God  work- 
eth  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  work  (2  : 13).  Rejoice  in  the  Lord  alway  . 
again  I will  say,  Rejoice  (3  : 1 ; 4 : 1).  I count  all  things  to  be  loss  for 
the  exoellency  of  the  knowledge  of  Christ  (3 : 8).  I press  on  toward  the 
goal  unto  the  prize  of  the  high  calling  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus  (3 : 14). 
Whatsoever  things  are  true,  whatsoever  things  are  honorable,  whatso- 
ever things  are  just,  whatsoever  things  are  pure,  whatsoever  things  are 
lovely,  whatsoever  things  are  of  good  report ; if  there  be  any  virtue,  and 
if  there  be  any  praise,  think  on  these  things  (4:8).  The  peace  of  God 
passeth  all  understanding  (4:7). 

§ 98.  The  Epistle  to  Philemon . 

Of  the  many  private  letters  of  introduction  and  recommenda- 
tion which  Paul  must  have  written  during  his  long  life,  only 
one  is  left  to  us,  very  brief  but  very  weighty.  It  is  addressed 
to  Philemon,  a zealous  Christian  at  Colossae,  a convert  of  Paul 
and  apparently  a layman,  who  lent  his  house  for  the  religious 
meetings  of  the  brethren.1  The  name  recalls  the  touching 
mythological  legend  of  the  faithful  old  couple,  Philemon  and 
Baucis,  who,  in  the  same  province  of  Phrygia,  entertained  gods 
unawares  and  were  rewarded  for  their  simple  hospitality  and  con- 
jugal love.  The  letter  was  written  and  transmitted  at  the  same 
time  as  that  to  the  Colossians.  It  may  be  regarded  as  a per- 
sonal postscript  to  it. 

It  was  a letter  of  recommendation  of  Onesimus  ( i.e .,  Profit- 
able),2 a slave  of  Philemon,  who  had  run  away  from  his  master 
on  account  of  some  offence  (probably  theft,  a very  common  sin 

1 A worthless  tradition  makes  him  bishop  of  Colossae  and  a martyr  in  the 
Neronian  persecution.  So  Onesimus  and  almost  every  important  man  in  the 
apostolic  church  was  turned  into  a bishop  and  martyr.  On  the  names  in  the 
Epistle,  see  Lightfoot’s  Com.  on  Col.  and  Philem .,  pp.  372  sqq. 

9 Hence  the  good-humored  play  on  the  meaning  of  the  word,  ver.  11, 
&XPV<ttos,  ctixfrnvTos,  ‘ ‘ unprofitable  to  thee,  but  now  profitable  to  thee  and  to 
me  and  the  play  on  the  name,  ver.  20,  ovalwv,  “let  me  have  comfort  in 
thee.” 


794 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


of  slaves),1  fell  in  with  Paul  at  Home,  of  whom  he  may  have 
heard  in  the  weekly  meetings  at  Colossae,  or  through  Epaphras, 
his  fellow-townsman,  was  converted  by  him  to  the  Christian 
faith,  and  now  desired  to  return,  as  a penitent,  in  company  with 
Tychicus,  the  bearer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  (Col.  4 : 9). 

Paul  and  Slavery. 

The  Epistle  is  purely  personal,  yet  most  significant.  Paul 
omits  his  official  title,  and  substitutes  the  touching  designation, 
“a  prisoner  of  Christ  Jesus,”  thereby  going  directly  to  the 
heart  of  his  friend.  The  letter  introduces  us  into  a Christian 
household,  consisting  of  father  (Philemon),  mother  (Apphia), 
son  (Archippus,  who  was  at  the  same  time  a “ fellow-soldier,”  a 
Christian  minister),  and  a slave  (Onesimus).  It  shows  the  effect 
of  Christianity  upon  society  at  a crucial  point,  where  heathenism 
was  utterly  helpless.  It  touches  on  the  institution  of  slavery, 
which  lay  like  an  incubus  upon  the  whole  heathen  world  and  was 
interwoven  with  the  whole  structure  of  domestic  and  public  life. 

The  effect  of  Christianity  upon  this  gigantic  social  evil  is 
that  of  a peaceful  and  gradual  cure  from  within,  by  teaching 
the  common  origin  and  equality  of  men,  their  common  redemp- 
tion and  Christian  brotherhood,  by  emancipating  them  from 
slavery  unto  spiritual  freedom,  equality,  and  brotherhood  in 
Christ,  in  whom  there  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  neither  bond 
nor  free,  neither  male  nor  female,  but  all  are  one  moral  person 
(Gal.  3 : 28).  This  principle  and  the  corresponding  practice 
wrought  first  an  amelioration,  and  ultimately  the  abolition  of 
slavery.  The  process  was  very  slow  and  retarded  by  the  counter- 
acting influence  of  the  love  of  gain  and  power,  and  all  the  sinful 
passions  of  men ; but  it  was  sure  and  is  now  almost  complete 
throughout  the  Christian  world ; while  paganism  and  Moham- 
medanism regard  slavery  as  a normal  state  of  society,  and  hence 

1 Yer.  18  seems  to  describe  the  actual  offence,  though  the  case  is  stated 
hypothetically,  ct  Se  n . . dfeiAei  (a  mild  word  for  fKAeipev,  stole).  The  apos- 
tle would  not  wound  the  feelings  of  the  slave,  nor  irritate  the  master,  and 
offers  himself  to  discharge  the  debt. 


§ 98.  TIIE  EPISTLE  TO  PHILEMON. 


795 


do  not  even  make  an  attempt  to  remove  it.  It  was  the  only  wise 
way  for  the  apostles  to  follow  in  dealing  with  the  subject.  A 
proclamation  of  emancipation  from  them  would  have  been  a 
mere  brutum  fubneny  or,  if  effectual,  would  have  resulted  in  a 
bloody  revolution  of  society  in  which  Christianity  itself  would 
have  been  buried. 

Paul  accordingly  sent  back  Onesimus  to  his  rightful  master,  yet 
under  a new  character,  no  more  a contemptible  thief  and  runaway, 
but  a regenerate  man  and  a “beloved  brother,”  with  the  touching 
request  that  Philemon  might  receive  him  as  kindly  as  he  would 
the  apostle  himself,  yea  as  his  own  heart  (vers.  16, 17).  Such  ad- 
vice took  the  sting  out  of  slavery  ; the  form  remained,  the  thing 
itself  was  gone.  What  a contrast ! In  the  eyes  of  the  heathen 
philosophers  (even  Aristotle)  Onesimus,  like  every  other  slave, 
was  but  a live  chattel ; in  the  eyes  of  Paul  a redeemed  child  of 
God  and  heir  of  eternal  life,  which  is  far  better  than  freedom.1 

The  New  Testament  is  silent  about  the  effect  of  the  letter. 
We  cannot  doubt  that  Philemon  forgave  Onesimus  and  treated 
him  with  Christian  kindness.  In  all  probability  he  went  beyond 
the  letter  of  the  request  and  complied  with  its  spirit,  which 
hints  at  emancipation.  Tradition  relates  that  Onesimus  received 
his  freedom  and  became  bishop  of  Beroea  in  Macedonia ; some- 
times he  is  confounded  with  his  namesake,  a bishop  of  Ephesus 
in  the  second  century,  or  made  a missionary  in  Spain  and  a 
martyr  in  Rome,  or  at  Puteoli.* 

1 “ The  Gospel,”  says  Lightfoot  (p.  389),  “never  directly  attacks  slavery  as 
an  institution  : the  apostles  never  command  the  liberation  of  slaves  as  an 
absolute  duty.  It  is  a remarkable  fact  that  St.  Paul  in  this  Epistle  stops 
short  of  any  positive  injunction.  The  word  ‘ emancipation  ’ seems  to  be  trem- 
bling on  his  lips,  and  yet  he  does  not  once  utter  it.  He  charges  Philemon 
to  take  the  runaway  slave  Onesimus  into  his  confidence  again  ; to  receive  him 
with  all  affection  ; to  regard  him  no  more  as  a slave,  but  as  a brother  ; to 
treat  him  with  the  same  consideration,  the  same  love,  which  he  entertains  for 
the  apostle  himself  to  whom  he  owes  everything.  In  fact  he  tells  him  to  do 
very  much  more  than  emancipate  his  slave,  but  this  one  thing  he  does  not 
directly  enjoin.  St.  Paul’s  treatment  of  this  individual  case  is  an  apt  illus- 
tration of  the  attitude  of  Christianity  toward  slavery  in  general.” 

2 For  these  conflicting  legends,  see  the  Acta  Sanctorum  Boll .,  XVI.  Febr., 
II.  857  sqq. 


796 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Paul  and  Philemon. 

The  Epistle  is  at  the  same  time  an  invaluable  contribution  to 
our  knowledge  of  Paul.  It  reveals  him  to  us  as  a perfect 
Christian  gentleman.  It  is  a model  of  courtesy,  delicacy,  and 
tenderness  of  feeling.  Shut  up  in  a prison,  the  aged  apostle 
had  a heart  full  of  love  and  sympathy  for  a poor  runaway  slave, 
made  him  a freeman  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  recommended  him  as 
if  he  were  his  own  self. 

Paul  and  Pliny. 

Grotius  and  other  commentators  1 quote  the  famous  letter  of 
Pliny  the  Consul  to  his  friend  Sabinianus  in  behalf  of  a run- 
away slave.  It  is  very  creditable  to  Pliny,  who  was  born  in  the 
year  when  Paul  arrived  as  a prisoner  in  Pome,  and  shows  that 
the  natural  feelings  of  kindness  and  generosity  could  not  be 
extinguished  even  by  that  inhuman  institution.  Pliny  was  a 
Poman  gentleman  of  high  culture  and  noble  instincts,  although 
he  ignorantly  despised  Christianity  and  persecuted  its  innocent 
professors  while  Proconsul  in  Asia.  The  letters  present  strik- 
ing points  of  resemblance : in  both,  a fugitive  slave,  guilty,  but 
reformed,  and  desirous  to  return  to  duty ; in  both,  a polite, 
delicate,  and  earnest  plea  for  pardon  and  restoration,  dictated 
by  sentiments  of  disinterested  kindness.  But  they  differ  as 
Christian  charity  differs  from  natural  philanthropy,  as  a Chris- 
tian gentleman  differs  from  a heathen  gentleman.  The  one 
could  appeal  only  to  the  amiable  temper  and  pride  of  his  friend, 
the  other  to  the  love  of  Christ  and  the  sense  of  duty  and  grati- 
tude ; the  one  was  concerned  for  the  temporal  comfort  of  his 
client,  the  other  even  more  for  his  eternal  welfare;  the  one 
could  at  best  remand  him  to  his  former  condition  as  a slave,  the 
other  raised  him  to  the  high  dignity  of  a Christian  brother,  sit- 
ting with  his  master  at  the  same  communion  table  of  a com- 
mon Lord  and  Saviour.  “ For  polished  speech  the  Poman 


As  Hackett  (in  Lange),  Lightfoot,  Lumby,  and  others. 


§ 98.  THE  EPISTLE  TO  PHILEMON. 


797 


may  bear  tlie  palm,  but  for  nobleness  of  tone  and  warmth  of 
heart  he  falls  far  short  of  the  imprisoned  apostle.” 

The  Epistle  was  poorly  understood  in  the  ancient  church  when 
slavery  ruled  supreme  in  the  Roman  empire.  A strong  prejudice 
prevailed  against  it  in  the  fourth  century,  as  if  it  were  wholly 
unworthy  of  an  apostle.  Jerome,  Chrysostom,  and  other  com- 
mentators, who  themselves  had  no  clear  idea  of  its  ultimate  social 
bearing,  apologized  to  their  readers  that  Paul,  instead  of  teach- 
ing metaphysical  dogmas  and  enforcing  ecclesiastical  discipline, 
should  take  so  much  interest  in  a poor  runaway  slave.1  But  since 
the  Reformation  full  justice  has  been  done  to  it.  Erasmus  says: 
“ Cicero  never  wrote  with  greater  elegance.”  Luther  and  Calvin 
speak  of  it  in  high  terms,  especially  Luther,  who  fully  appre- 
ciated its  noble,  Christ-like  sentiments.  Bengel : “ mire  a<7Teto?.” 
Ewald  : “ Nowhere  can  the  sensibility  and  warmth  of  a tender 
friendship  blend  more  beautifully  with  the  loftier  feeling  of  a 
commanding  spirit  than  in  this  letter,  at  once  so  brief,  and  yet 
so  surpassingly  full  and  significant.”  Meyer : “ A precious 
relic  of  a great  character,  and,  viewed  merely  as  a specimen  of 
Attic  elegance  and  urbanity,  it  takes  rank  among  the  epistolary 
masterpieces  of  antiquity.”  Baur  rejects  it  with  trifling  argu- 
ments as  post-apostolic,  but  confesses  that  it  “ makes  an  agree- 
able impression  by  its  attractive  form,”  and  breathes  “ the 
noblest  Christian  spirit.” 2 Holtzmann  calls  it  “ a model  of  tact, 
refinement,  and  amiability.”  Reuss : “ a model  of  tact  and  hu- 
manity, and  an  expression  of  a fine  appreciation  of  Christian 
duty  and  genial,  amiable  humor.”  Renan,  with  his  keen  eye  on 
the  literary  and  aesthetic,  merits  or  defects,  praises  it  as  “ a verit- 


1 See  Lightfoot,  p.  383,  and  the  Speaker’s  Com.  New  Test.,  III.  829. 

2 “ Es  wird  hier he  says  ( Paulus , II.  88,  second  ed.),  “ irn  Christenthum 
die  schone  Idee  aufgefasst,  dass  die  durch  dasselbe  mit  einandet'  Verbundenen 
in  einer  wahren  Wesensgemeinschaft  mit  einander  stehen , so  dass  der  Eine  in 
dem  Anderen  sein  eigenes  Selbst  erkennt , sich  mit  ihm  vollig  Bins  weiss  und  einer 
far  alle  Ewigkeit  dauernden  Vereinigung  angehort .”  Hilgenfeld  admits  the 
genuineness,  saying  (p.  331):  u Der  game  Brief  trdgt  das  Geprdge  der  ein - 
fachen  Wahrheit  an  sich  und  verrdth  auch  in  den  Wortspielen,  vers.  11,  20,  die 
Schreibart  des  Paulus .” 


798 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


able  little  chef-d'oeuvre  of  the  art  of  letter-writing.’"  And  Light 
foot,  while  estimating  still  higher  its  moral  significance  on  the 
question  of  slavery,  remarks  of  its  literary  excellency : “ As  an 
expression  of  simple  dignity,  of  refined  courtesy,  of  large  sym- 
pathy, of  warm  personal  affection,  the  Epistle  to  Philemon 
stands  unrivalled.  And  its  pre-eminence  is  the  more  remark- 
able because  in  style  it  is  exceptionally  loose.  It  owes  nothing 
to  the  graces'  of  rhetoric ; its  effect  is  due  solely  to  the  spirit  of 
the  writer.” 


§ 99.  The  Pastoral  Epistles. 

Comp.  § 33,  pp.  327-329. 

Contents. 

The  three  Pastoral  Epistles,  two  to  Timothy  and  one  to  Titus, 
form  a group  by  themselves,  and  represent  the  last  stage  of  the 
apostle’s  life  and  labors,  with  his  parting  counsels  to  his  beloved 
disciples  and  fellow-workers.  They  show  us  the  transition  of 
the  apostolic  church  from  primitive  simplicity  to  a more  definite 
system  of  doctrine  and  form  of  government.  This  is  just  what 
we  might  expect  from  the  probable  time  of  their  composition 
after  the  first  Roman  captivity  of  Paul,  and  before  the  compo- 
sition of  the  Apocalypse. 

They  are  addressed  not  to  congregations,  but  to  individuals, 
and  hence  more  personal  and  confidential  in  their  character. 
This  fact  helps  us  to  understand  many  peculiarities.  Timothy, 
the  son  of  a heathen  father  and  a Jewish  mother,  and  Titus,  a 
converted  Greek,  were  among  the  dearest  of  Paul’s  pupils.1 
They  were,  at  the  same  time,  his  delegates  and  commissioners 
on  special  occasions,  and  appear  under  this  official  character  in 
the  Epistles,  which,  for  this  reason,  bear  the  name  “Pastoral.” 

The  Epistles  contain  Paul’s  pastoral  theology  and  his  theory  of 
church  government.  They  give  directions  for  founding,  train- 
ing, and  governing  churches,  and  for  the  proper  treatment  of 


1 For  biographical  details,  see  the  Bible  Dictionaries  and  Commentaries. 


§ 99.  tiip:  pastoral  epistles. 


799 


individual  members,  old  and  young,  widows  and  virgins,  back- 
sliders and  heretics.  They  are  rich  in  practical  wisdom  and 
full  of  encouragement,  as  every  pastor  knows. 

The  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy  is  more  personal  in  its  con- 
tents than  the  other  twro,  and  has  the  additional  importance  of 
concluding  the  autobiography  of  Paul.  It  is  his  last  will  and 
testament  to  all  future  ministers  and  soldiers  of  Christ. 

The  Pauline  Authorship. 

There  never  was  a serious  doubt  as  to  the  Pauline  authorship 
of  these  Epistles  till  the  nineteenth  century,  except  among  a 
few  Gnostics  in  the  second  century.  They  were  always  reck- 
oned among  the  Ilomologumena , as  distinct  from  the  seven 
Antileg omena,  or  disputed  books  of  the  New  Testament.  As 
far  as  external  evidence  is  concerned,  they  stand  on  as  firm  a 
foundation  as  any  other  Epistle.  They  are  quoted  as  canonical 
by  Eusebius,  Tertullian,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  Irenseus. 
Reminiscences  from  them,  in  some  cases  with  verbal  agreement, 
are  found  in  several  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers.  They  are  included 
in  the  ancient  MSS.  and  Versions,  and  in  the  list  of  the  Mura- 
torian  canon.  Marcion  (about  140),  it  is  true,  excluded  them 
from  his  canon  of  ten  Pauline  Epistles,  but  he  excluded  also  the 
Gospels  (except  a mutilated  Luke),  the  Catholic  Epistles,  and 
the  Apocalypse.1 

Put  there  are  certain  internal  difficulties  which  have  induced 
a number  of  modern  critics  to  assign  them  all,  or  at  least  First 
Timothy,  to  a post-Pauline  or  pseudo-Pauline  writer,  who  either 
changed  and  adapted  Pauline  originals  to  a later  state  of  the 

1 See  the  testimonies  in  Kirchhofer’s  Quellensammlung , as  translated  and  en- 
larged by  Charteris,  Canonicity,  255-268.  Renan  admits  the  resemblance 
between  the  First  Epistle  of  Clemens  Romanus  (c.  44)  and  Second  Timothy 
( e.g . , in  the  use  of  the  word  avd\v<rts  for  death),  but  assumes  that  both  borrowed 
from  a common  source,  the  favorite  language  of  the  church  of  Rome,  and 
also  that  the  forger  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  probably  made  use  of  some  au- 
thentic letters  of  Paul.  L'figlise  chret. , p.  95  : “ Quelques  passages  de  ces  trois 
epitres  sont  d'ailleurs  si  beaux , gu'on  pent  se  demander  si  le  faussaire  riavait 
pas  entre  les  mains  quelques  billets  authentiques  de  Paul” 


800 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


church,  or  fabricated  the  whole  in  the  interest  of  Catholic  or- 
thodoxy. In  either  case,  the  writer  is  credited  with  the  best 
intentions,  and  must  not  be  judged  according  to  the  modern 
standard  of  literary  honesty  and  literary  property.  Doctrinally, 
the  Pastoral  Epistles  are  made  the  connecting  link  between 
genuine  Paulinism  and  the  Johannean  Logos-philosophy ; eccle- 
siastically, the  link  between  primitive  Presbyterianism  and 
Catholic  Episcopacy ; in  both  respects,  a necessary  element  in 
the  formation  process  of  the  orthodox  Catholic  church  of  the 
second  century. 

The  objections  against  the  Pauline  authorship  deserve  serious 
consideration,  and  are  as  follows:  (1)  The  impossibility  of  lo- 
cating these  Epistles  in  the  recorded  life  of  Paul ; (2)  the  Gnos- 
tic heresy  opposed  ; (3)  the  ecclesiastical  organization  implied ; 
(4)  the  peculiarities  of  style  and  temper.  If  they  are  not  genu- 
ine, Second  Timothy  must  be  the  oldest,  as  it  is  least  liable  to 
these  objections,  and  First  Timothy  and  Titus  are  supposed  to 
represent  a later  development.1 

The  Time  of  Composition. 

The  chronology  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  is  uncertain,  and  has 
been  made  an  objection  to  their  genuineness.  It  is  closely  con- 
nected with  the  hypothesis  of  a second  Roman  captivity,  which 
we  have  discussed  in  another  place. 

The  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  whether  genuine  or  not, 
hails  from  a Roman  prison,  and  appears  to  be  the  last  of  Paul’s 
Epistles ; for  he  was  then  hourly  expecting  the  close  of  his  fight 
of  faith,  and  the  crown  of  righteousness  from  his  Lord  and 
Master  (2  Tim.  4 : 7,  8).  Those  who  deny  the  second  imprison- 
ment, and  yet  accept  Second  Timothy  as  Pauline,  make  it  the 
last  of  the  first  imprisonment. 

1 Baur  and  Hilgenfeld  (Einleit.,  p.  764)  bring  them  down  to  150  (after  Mar- 
cion,  140),  and  date  them  from  Rome.  But  this  is  impossible,  and  rests  on  a 
false  exegesis.  Pfleiderer,  of  the  same  Tubingen  school,  puts  Second  Timothy 
in  the  age  of  Trajan,  the  other  two  in  the  age  of  Hadrian.  He,  moreover, 
regards  the  passages  2 Tim  1 : 15-18  and  4 : 9-21  as  fragments  of  a genuine 
Epistle  of  Paul.  Comp,  also  Holtzmann,  p.  271. 


§ 99.  THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES. 


801 


As  to  First  Timothy  and  Titus,  it  is  evident  from  their  con- 
tents that  they  were  written  while  Paul  was  free,  and  after  he 
had  made  some  journeys,  which  are  not  recorded  in  the  Acts. 
Here  lies  the  difficulty.  Two  ways  are  open  : 

1.  The  two  Epistles  were  written  in  56  and  57.  Paul  may, 
during  his  three  years’  sojourn  in  Ephesus,  a.d.  54—57  (see  Acts 
19  : 8-10  ; 20  : 31),  easily  have  made  a second  journey  to  Mace- 
donia, leaving  Ephesus  in  charge  of  Timothy  (1  Tim.  1:3); 
and  also  crossed  over  to  the  island  of  Crete,  where  he  left  Titus 
behind  to  take  care  of  the  churches  (Tit.  1 : 5).  Considering 
the  incompleteness  of  the  record  of  Acts,  and  the  probable  allu- 
sions in  2 Cor.  2:1;  12  : 13,  14,  21 ; 13  : 1,  to  a second  visit  to 
Corinth,  not  mentioned  in  the  Acts,  these  two  journeys  are 
within  the  reach  of  possibility.1  But  such  an  early  date  leaves 
the  other  difficulties  unexplained. 

2.  The  tradition  of  the . second  Boman  captivity,  which  can 
be  raised  at  least  to  a high  degree  of  probability,  removes  the 
difficulty  by  giving  us  room  for  new  journeys  and  labors  of 
Paul  between  his  release  in  the  spring  of  63  and  the  Neronian 
persecution  in  July,  64  (according  to  Tacitus),  or  three  or  four 
years  later  (according  to  Eusebius  and  Jerome),  as  well  as  for 
the  development  of  the  Gnostic  heresy  and  the  ecclesiastical 
organization  of  the  church  which  is  implied  in  these  Epistles. 
Hence,  most  writers  who  hold  to  the  genuineness  place  First 
Timothy  and  Titus  between  the  first  and  second  Homan  cap- 
tivities.3 

Paul  certainly  intended  to  make  a journey  from  Borne  to 
Spain  (Bom.  15  : 24),  and  also  one  to  the  East  (Philem.  22 ; 
Phil.  1 : 25,  26  ; 2 : 24),  and  he  had  ample  time  to  carry  out  his 
intention  even  before  the  Neronian  persecution,  if  we  insist 
upon  confining  this  to  the  date  of  Tacitus.8 

1 So  Schrader,  Wieseler,  Reythmayr,  formerly  also  Reuse  (in his  Otsch. , etc., 
5th  ed.,  1875,  but  withdrawn  in  his  French  Com.  on  the  Pauline  Epp.,  1878). 

3 So  Theophylact,  Oecumenius,  Ussher,  Pearson,  Tillemont,  Neander,  Bleek, 
Ruffet,  Lange,  Farrar,  Plumptre,  Lightfoot,  etc. 

3 A release  of  Paul  from  the  first  Roman  captivity  and  a visit  to  Spain  is 
also  asserted  by  such  critics  as  Ewald  and  Renan. 


802 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Those  who  press  the  chronological  difficulty  should  not  for- 
get that  a forger  could  have  very  easily  fitted  the  Epistles  into 
the  narrative  of  the  Acts,  and  was  not  likely  to  invent  a series 
of  journeys,  circumstances,  and  incidents,  such  as  the  bringing 
of  the  cloak,  the  books,  and  the  parchments  which  Paul,  in  the 
hurry  of  travel,  had  left  at  Troas  (2  Tim.  4 : 13). 


The  Gnostic  Heresy. 

The  Pastoral  Epistles,  like  Colossians,  oppose  the  Gnostic 
heresy  (y vSmtk  yfrev$d)vv/j,o<;,  1 Tim.  6 : 20)  which  arose  in  Asia 
Minor  during  his  first  Roman  captivity,  and  appears  more  fully 
developed  in  Cerinthus,  the  contemporary  of  John.  This  was 
acknowledged  by  the  early  Fathers,  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian,  who 
used  these  very  Epistles  as  Pauline  testimonies  against  the 
Gnosticism  of  their  day. 

The  question  arises,  which  of  the  many  types  of  this  many- 
sided  error  is  opposed  ? Evidently  the  Judaizing  type,  which 
resembled  that  at  Colossae,  but  was  more  advanced  and  malig- 
nant, and  hence  is  more  sternly  denounced.  The  heretics  were 
of  “the  circumcision ” (Tit.  1:10);  they  are  called  “teachers 
of  the  law  ” ( vo/j,o$L$do-/ca\oL , 1 Tim.  1 : 7,  the  very  reverse  of 
antinomians),  “given  to  Jewish  fables”  (IovScll/cgi  /jlv&oi,  Tit. 

1 : 14),  and  “ disputes  connected  with  the  law  ” vo/iucai. 

Tit.  3 : 9),  and  fond  of  foolish  and  ignorant  questionings  (2  Tim. 

2 : 23).  They  were,  moreover,  extravagant  ascetics,  like  the 
Essenes,  forbidding  to  marry  and  abstaining  from  meat  (1  Tim. 
4:3,  8 ; Tit.  1:14,  15).  They  denied  the  resurrection  and 
“ overthrew  the  faith  of  some  ” (2  Tim.  2:18). 

Baur  turned  these  heretics  into  anti-Jewish  and  antinomies 
Gnostics  of  the  school  of  Marcion  (about  140),  and  then,  by 
consequence,  put  the  Epistles  down  to  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.  He  finds  in  the  “genealogies”  (1  Tim.  1:4;  Tit.  3 : 9) 
the  emanations  of  the  Gnostic  aeons,  and  in  the  “ antitheses  ” 
(1  Tim.  6 : 20),  or  anti-evangelical  assertions  of  the  heretical 
teachers,  an  allusion  to  Marcion’s  “ antitheses  ” (antilogies),  by 


§ 99.  TIIE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES. 


803 


which  he  set  forth  the  supposed  contradictions  between  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments.1 *  But  this  is  a radical  misinterpretation, 
and  the  more  recent  opponents  of  the  genuineness  are  forced  to 
admit  the  Judaizing  character  of  those  errorists;  they  identify 
them  with  Cerinthus,  the  Ophites,  and  Saturninus,  who  pre- 
ceded Marcion  by  several  decades.3 * 

As  to  the  origin  of  the  Gnostic  heresy,  which  the  Tubingen 
school  would  put  down  to  the  age  of  Hadrian,  we  have  already 
seen  that,  like  its  counterpart,  the  Ebionite  heresy,  it  dates  from 
the  apostolic  age,  according  to  the  united  testimony  of  the  later 
Pauline  Epistles,  the  Epistles  of  Peter,  John,  and  Jude,  the 
Apocalypse,  and  the  patristic  tradition.5 


Ecclesiastical  Organization. 

The  Pastoral  Epistles  seem  to  presuppose  a more  fully  devel- 
oped ecclesiastical  organization  than  the  other  Pauline  Epistles, 
and  to  belong  to  an  age  of  transition  from  apostolic  simplicity, 
or  Christo-democracy — if  we  may  use  such  a term — to  the  epis- 
copal hierarchy  of  the  second  century.  The  church,  in  propor- 
tion as  it  lost,  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  its  faith  in 
the  speedy  advent  of  Christ,  began  to  settle  down  in  this  world, 
and  to  make  preparations  for  a permanent  home  by  a fixed 
creed  and  a compact  organization,  which  gave  it  unity  and 
strength  against  heathen  persecution  and  heretical  corruption. 
This  organization,  at  once  simple  and  elastic,  was  episcopacy, 
with  its  subordinate  offices  of  the  presbyterate  and  deaconate, 
and  charitable  institutions  for  widows  and  orphans.  Such  an 
organization  we  have,  it  is  said,  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  which 

1 The  dj'Ti&e<reis  rrjs  ipevda>yv[iou  yvdtretos  (“oppositions”  in  the  E.  V.  and 
Revision)  are  understood  by  the  best  exegetes  to  mean  simply  the  doctrinal 
theses  which  the  heretics  opposed  to  the  sound  doctrine  (comp.  2 Tim.  2 : 23 ; 

Tit.  1 : 9).  So  DeWette,  Matthies,  and  Wiesinger.  Hofmann  and  Huthet 
identify  them  with  K<vo<pwv'iai  and  Aoyonaxtcu  (1  Tim.  5 : 4).  Holtzmann  (p. 

131)  likewise  rejects  Baur’s  interpretation. 

- Holtzmann,  l.c.,  p.  127;  also  Lipsius,  Schenkel,  Pfleiderer. 

z See  above,  § 96,  pp.  786  sqq. 


804 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


were  written  in  the  name  of  Paul,  to  give  the  weight  of  his 
authority  to  the  incipient  hierarchy.1 * 

But,  on  closer  inspection,  there  is  a very  marked  difference 
between  the  ecclesiastical  constitution  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles 
and  that  of  the  second  century.  There  is  not  a word  said  about 
the  divine  origin  of  episcopacy ; not  a trace  of  a congregational 
episcopate,  such  as  we  find  in  the  Ignatian  epistles,  still  less  of 
a diocesan  episcopate  of  the  time  of  Irenseus  and  Tertullian. 
Bishops  and  presbyters  are  still  identical  as  they  are  in  the 
Acts  (20  : IT,  28),  and  in  the  undoubtedly  genuine  Epistle  to 
the  Philippians  (1  : 1).  Even  Timothy  and  Titus  appear  simply 
as  delegates  of  the  apostle  for  a specific  mission.3  The  qualifi- 
cations and  functions  required  of  the  bishop  are  aptness  to 
teach  and  a blameless  character ; and  their  authority  is  made  to 
depend  upon  their  moral  character  rather  than  their  office. 
They  are  supposed  to  be  married,  and  to  set  a good  example  in 
governing  their  own  household.  The  ordination  which  Timothy 
received  (1  Tim.  4:14;  5 : 22)  need  not  differ  from  the  ordina- 
tion of  deacons  and  elders  mentioned  in  the  early  part  of  the  Acts 


1 Such  is  the  ingenious  reasoning  of  Baur  and  Renan  (L'Egl.  chret .,  pp.  85 
and94sqq.).  Comp,  the  discussion  of  details  by  Holtzmann,  l.c.,  ch.  XI., 
pp.  190  sqq. 

8 1 Tim.  1 : 3 ; 3 : 14  ; 2 Tim.  4 : 9,  21 ; Tit.  1 : 5 ; 3 : 12.  See  above,  § 61, 
pp.  491  sqq.  The  fact  is  acknowledged  by  impartial  episcopal  writers,  as  Dean 
Alford,  Bishop  Lightfoot,  Dean  Stanley,  and  Dean  Plumptre  (in  Schaff’s  Com. 
AT.  7.,  III.  552;.  I will  quote  from  Canon  Farrar  (St.  Paul . II.  417)-  “If 
the  Pastoral  Epistles  contained  a clear  defence  of  the  Episcopal  system  of  the 
second  century,  this  alone  would  be  sufficient  to  prove  their  spuriousness ; but 
the  total  absence  of  anything  resembling  it  is  one  of  the  strongest  proofs  that 
they  belong  to  the  apostolic  age.  Bishop  and  presbyter  are  still  synonymous, 
as  they  are  throughout  the  New  Testament.  . . . Timothy  and  Titus  ex- 

ercise functions  which  would  be  now  called  episcopal ; but  they  are  not  called 
‘ bishops.’  Their  functions  were  temporary,  and  they  simply  act  as  authori- 
tative delegates  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  Nor  is  there  any  trace  of 
exalted  pretensions  in  the  overseers  whom  they  appoint.  The  qualifications 
required  of  them  are  almost  exclusively  moral.”  Comp,  also  some  good  re- 
marks of  Prof.  Wace,  in  the  Speaker’s  Com.  on  the  New  Test.,  III.  764,  where 
it  is  justly  said  that  the  church  polity  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles  represents  an 
intermediate  stage  between  the  Presbyterian  episcopacy  of  the  earlier  apos* 
tolic  period  and  the  post-apostolic  episcopacy. 


§ 99.  THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES. 


805 


(6:6;  8:17;  comp.  14  : 23  ; 19  : 6).  “ Few  features,”  says  Dr. 
Plumptre,  himself  an  Episcopalian,  “ are  more  striking  in  these 
Epistles  than  the  absence  of  any  high  hierarchical  system.”  The 
Apocalypse,  which  these  very  critics  so  confidently  assign  to 
the  year  68,  shows  a nearer  approach  to  episcopal  unity  in  the 
w angels”  of  the  seven  churches.  But  even  from  the  “angels” 
of  the  Apocalypse  there  was  a long  way  to  the  Ignatian  and 
pseudo-Clementine  bishops,  who  are  set  up  as  living  oracles  and 
hierarchical  idols. 


The  Style. 

The  language  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  shows  an  unusual 
number  of  un-Pauline  words  and  phrases,  especially  rare  com- 
pounds, some  of  them  nowhere  found  in  the  whole  New  Testa- 
ment, or  even  in  Greek  literature.1 

But,  in  the  first  place,  the  number  of  words  peculiar  to  each 
one  of  the  three  epistles  is  much  greater  than  the  number  of 
peculiar  words  common  to  all  three ; consequently,  if  the  argu- 
ment proves  anything,  it  leads  to  the  conclusion  of  three  differ- 
ent authors,  which  the  assailants  will  not  admit,  in  view  of  the 
general  unity  of  the  Epistles.  In  the  next  place,  every  one  of 
Paul’s  Epistles  has  a number  of  peculiar  words,  even  the  little 
Epistle  of  Philemon.2  The  most  characteristic  words  were  re- 

1 This  philological  argument  was  begun  by  Schleiermacher,  but  confined  to 
First  Timothy,  and  was  carried  out,  with  reference  to  all  three  Epistles,  by 
Holtzmann,  l.c.,  ch.  VI.,  pp.  84-118.  I will  give  his  results.  The  Pastoral 
Epistles  have,  in  all,  897  words.  Of  these  there  are  169  Hajpaxlegomena  not 
found  in  the  New  Testament,  namely  : 

(a)  74  in  First  Timothy,  such  as  ayaSoepyeTv,  ayvela,  dSrjXdr 779,  aj/fycwroSto-T^y, 
&v5 po<p6vos,  (TepofiL$a(TKa\€iv,  freo<re/Je<a,  KaracrroXv,  irAe'7/ta,  iropia/xos,  <f>i\apyvpiay 
^evSo\<fyos,  if/evScvvv/uos. 

(Z>)  46  in  Second  Timothy,  e.g.,  aytoyy,  /SeXTtoi/,  ptfifipava,  dp&oTOfie'iv, 

tt payparela,  <f)i\6^cos. 

(c)  28  in  Titus,  e.g.,  alperiicSs , aKardyvaxTros,  cup&opta,  a\peu8r}s,  KaXoSiSdcrfcaXos, 
fiaraioXdyos,  ir peaftvTis,  cruniipios,  <pi\dycfoos,  <p'i\avtipos  (iraXivyet/eala,  Tit.  3 : 5, 
occurs  also  Matt.  19  : 28,  but  in  a different  sense). 

(d)  21  common  to  two  or  three  Past.  Epp.,  e.g  , 8id/3o\os  (as  adjective), 
kvoffios , $i$<xktik6s,  Kevocpcovia.  voul/uoos,  irapa^Krj,  yeveaXoyia,  eixTeflcos. 

a Farrar  (II.  611)  affirms  that  there  are  no  less  than  111  peculiar  terms 
in  Romans,  186  in  Corinthians,  57  in  Galatians,  54  in  Philippians,  6 in  Phil- 


806 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


quired  by  the  nature  of  the  new  topics  handled  and  the  heresy 
combated,  such  as  “knowledge  falsely  so  called r * (ylreuBcowfio^ 
yvaya’is,  1 Tim.  6 : 20)  ; “ healthful  doctrine  ” ( vycalvovaa  SlScio-- 
fca\ia,  1 Tim.  1 : 10) ; “ Jewish  myths  ” (Tit.  1 : 14) ; “ genealo- 
gies ” (Tit.  3:9);“  profane  babblings  ” (2  Tim.  2 : 16).  Paul’s 
mind  was  uncommonly  fertile  and  capable  of  adapting  itself  to 
varying  conditions,  and  had  to  create  in  some  measure  the 
Christian  idiom.  The  Tubingen  critics  profess  the  highest  ad- 
miration for  his  genius,  and  yet  would  contract  his  vocabu- 
lary to  a very  small  compass.  Finally,  the  peculiarities  of  style 
are  counterbalanced  by  stronger  resemblances  and  unmistakable 
evidences  of  Pauline  authorship.  “ There  are  flashes  of  the 
deepest  feeling,  outbursts  of  the  most  intense  expression.  There 
is  rhythmic  movement  and  excellent  majesty  in  the  doxologies, 
and  the  ideal  of  a Christian  pastor  drawn  not  only  with  an  un- 
faltering hand,  but  with  a beauty,  fulness,  and  simplicity  which 
a thousand  years  of  subsequent  experience  have  enabled  no  one 
to  equal,  much  less  to  surpass.”  1 

On  the  other  hand,  we  may  well  ask  the  opponents  to  give  a 
good  reason  why  a forger  should  have  chosen  so  many  new 
words  when  lie  might  have  so  easily  confined  himself  to  the 
vocabulary  of  the  other  Epistles  of  Paul ; why  he  should  have 
added  “ mercy  ” to  the  salutation  instead  of  the  usual  form ; 
why  he  should  have  called  Paul  “ the  chief  of  sinners  ” (1  Tim. 
1 : 15),  and  affected  a tone  of  humility  rather  than  a tone  of 
high  apostolic  authority  ? 

Other  Objections. 

The  Epistles  have  been  charged  with  want  of  logical  connec- 
tion, with  abruptness,  monotony,  and  repetitiousness,  unworthy 
of  such  an  original  thinker  and  writer  as  Paul.  But  this  fea- 
ture is  only  the  easy,  familiar,  we  may  say  careless,  style  which 

eraon.  Luke’s  peculiar  vocabulary  is  especially  rich ; he  uses,  as  Holtzmann 
observes  (p.  96),  <14  words  in  common  with  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  and  has,  be* 
sides,  82  words  not  found  in  Paul. 

1 Farrar,  II.  611. 


§ 99.  THE  PAST011AL  EPISTLES. 


807 


forms  the  charm  as  well  as  the  defect  of  personal  correspond- 
ence. Moreover,  every  great  author  varies  more  or  less  at  dif- 
ferent periods  of  life,  and  under  different  conditions  and  moods. 

It  would  be  a more  serious  objection  if  the  theology  of  these 
Epistles  could  be  made  to  appear  in  conflict  with  that  of  his 
acknowledged  works.'  But  this  is  not  the  case.  It  is  said  that, 
greater  stress  is  laid  on  sound  doctrine  and  good  works.  But 
in  Galatians,  Paul  condemns  most  solemnly  every  departure  from 
the  genuine  gospel  (1  : 8,  9),  and  in  all  his  Epistles  he  enjoins 
holiness  as  the  indispensable  evidence  of  faith  ; while  salvation 
is  just  as  clearly  traced  to  divine  grace  alone,  in  the  Pastoral 
Epistles  (1  Tim.  1:9;  Tit.  3 : 5),  as  in  Homans. 

In  conclusion,  while  we  cannot  be  blind  to  certain  difficulties, 
and  may  not  be  able,  from  want  of  knowledge  of  the  precise 
situation  of  the  writer,  satisfactorily  to  explain  them,  we  must 
insist  that  the  prevailing  evidence  is  in  favor  of  the  genuineness 
of  these  Epistles.  They  agree  with  Paul’s  doctrinal  system ; 
they  are  illuminated  with  flashes  of  his  genius ; they  bear  the 
marks  of  his  intense  personality ; they  contain  rare  gems  of 
inspired  truth,  and  most  wholesome  admonition  and  advice, 
which  makes  them  to-day  far  more  valuable  than  any  number 
of  works  on  pastoral  theology  and  church  government.  There 
are  not  a few  passages  in  them  which,  for  doctrine  or  practice, 
are  equal  to  the  best  he  ever  wrrote,  and  are  deeply  lodged  in 
the  experience  and  affection  of  Christendom.2 

And  what  could  be  a more  fitting,  as  well  as  more  sublime 
and  beautiful,  finale  of  such  a hero  of  faith  than  the  last  words 
of  his  last  Epistle,  written  in  the  very  face  of  martyrdom : “ I 

1 Pfleiderer  ( Protestanten-Bibel , p.  834)  says:  u Die  kirchliche  Lehrrichtung 
der  Hirtenbriefe  ist  eine  von  der  altpaidinischen  sehr  weit  verschiedene.  Von  den 
eigenthumlich  paidinischen  Lehren  uber  Gesetz  vnd  Evangelium,  uber  Werke 
und  Glauben  Jin  den  sich  in  unseren  Bnefen  nur  abgeblasste  Reste,  die  fast  wie 
feststebende  uberlieferte  Formeln  Mingen,  wdhrend  das  Glaubensbewusstsein 
ein  anderes  geworden  ist In  this  harsh  and  unjust  judgment  the  fact  is 
overlooked  that  the  three  Epistles  are  pastoral  and  not  doctrinal  Epistles. 

2 Such  passages  as  1 Tim.  1 : 15,  17;  2:1,  4-6,  8 ; 3 : 2,  1C ; 4 : 1,  4,  7,  10, 
15  ; 5 : 8,  17,  18,  22 ; 6 : 6,  9-12  ; 2 Tim.  1 : 6 ; 2 : 11,  12,  19,  22  ; 3 : 12,  16, 
17  ; 4 : 2,  6-8;  Tit.  1 : 7,  15  ; 2 : 11  ; 3 : 5,  6. 


808 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


am  already  being  offered,  and  the  time  of  my  departure  is 
come.  I have  fought  the  good  fight,  I have  finished  the  course, 
I have  kept  the  faith : henceforth  there  is  laid  up  for  me  the 
crown  of  righteousness,  which  the  Lord,  the  righteous  judge, 
shall  give  to  me  at  that  day : and  not  only  to  me,  but  also  to  all 
them  that  have  loved  his  appearing.” 

Note. 

Schleiermacher  led  the  way,  in  1807,  with  his  attack  on  1 Timothy, 
urging  very  keenly  historical,  philological,  and  other  objections,  but 
assuming  2 Timothy  and  Titus  to  be  the  genuine  originals  from  which 
the  first  was  compiled.  DeWette  followed  in  his  Introduction.  Baur 
left  both  behind  and  rejected  all,  in  his  epoch-making  treatise,  Die 
sogenannten  Pastor  albriefe,  1835.  He  was  followed  by  Schwegler  (1846), 
Hilgenfeld  (1875),  Mangold,  Schenkel,  Hausrath,  Pfleiderer  (both  in  his 
Paulinismus  and  in  his  Commentary  in  the  Protestanten-Bibel , 1874), 
Holtzmann ; also  by  Ewald,  Renan  (UEglise  chretienne , pp.  85  sqq.),  and 
Sam.  Davidson  ( Introd .,  revised  ed.,  II.  21  sqq.).  The  most  elaborate 
book  against  the  genuineness  is  Holtzmann’s  Die  Pastor  albriefe  kritisch 
und  exeg.  behandelt , Leipzig,  1880  (504  pp.)  ; comp,  his  Einleitung  (1886). 

Reuss  ( Les  epitres  Pauliniennes , 1878,  II.  243  sq.,  307  sq.,  and  Gesch. 
des  N.  T.,  1887,  p.  257  sqq.)  rejects  1 Timothy  and  Titus,  but  admits  2 
Timothy,  assigning  it  to  the  first  Roman  captivity.  He  thinks  that  2 Tim- 
othy would  never  have  been  doubted  except  for  its  suspicious  compan- 
ionship. Some  of  the  opponents,  as  Pfleiderer  and  Renan,  feel  forced  to 
admit  some  scraps  of  genuine  Pauline  Epistles  or  notes,  and  thus  they 
break  the  force  of  the  opposition.  The  three  Epistles  must  stand  or  fall 
together,  either  as  wholly  Pauline,  or  as  wholly  pseudo-Pauline. 

The  genuineness  has  been  ably  vindicated  by  Guericke,  Thiersch, 
Huther,  Wiesinger,  Otto,  Wieseler,  Van  Oosterzee,  Lange,  Herzog,  von 
Hofmann,  Beck,  Alford,  Gloag,  Fairbairn  (Past.  Ep.,  1874),  Farrar  (St. 
Paul,  II.  607  sqq.),  Wace  (in  the  Speaker’s  Com.  New  Test.,  III.,  1881, 
749  sqq.),  Plumptre  (in  SchafFs  Com.  on  the  New  Test.,  III.,  1882,  pp. 
550  sqq.),  Rolling  (Der  erste  Br.  a.  Tim.  1882),  Salmon  (1885),  and 
Weiss  (1886). 

§ 100.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews . 

I.  Commentaries  on  Hebrews  by  Chrysostom  (d.  407,  cp/irjvela,  in  34  Hom- 
ilies publ.  after  his  death  by  an  Antioch,  presbyter,  Constantinus) ; 
Theodoret  (d.  457)  ; (Ecumenius  (10th  cent.)  ; Theophylact  (11th 
cent.)  ; Thomas  Aquinas  (d.  1274) ; Erasmus  (d.  1536,  Annotationes  in 
N.  T.,  with  his  Greek  Test.,  1516  and  often,  and  Paraphrasis  in  N. 
T.,  1522  and  often)  ; Card.  Cajetanus  (Epistolce  Pauli,  etc.,  1531) ; 


§ 100.  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 


809 


Calvin  (d.  1564,  Com.  in  omnes  P.  Ep.  atque  etiam  in  Ep.  ad  lie * 
brcpos,  1539  and  often,  also  Halle,  1831) ; Beza  (d.  1605,  transl.  and 
notes,  1557  and  often  ; had  much  influence  on  King  James’  Version) ; 
Hyperius  (at  Marburg,  d.  1564) ; 1)av.  Pareus  (d.  1615,  Com.  in  Ep . 
ad  Hebr.)  ; Corn,  a Lapide  (Jesuit,  d.  1637,  Com.  in  omnes  Pauli 
Epp.,  1627  and  often)  ; Gull.  Estius  (R.  C.  Prof,  at  Douai,  1614, 
etc.) ; Jao.  Cappellus  (Sedan,  1624) ; Lud.  Cappellus  (Geneva, 
1632);  Grotius  (d.  1645,  Arminian,  a great  classical  and  general 
scholar) ; Joh.  Gerhard  (d.  1637) ; John  Owen  (the  great  Puritan 
divine,  d.  1683,  Exercitations  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  London, 
1668-80,  in  4 vols.  fol.,  Lat.  transl.,  Amsterd.,  1700  [new  Engl.  ed. 
in  7 vols.,  in  his  Works , Lond.,  1826,  21  vols.  ; Edinb.  ed.  of  Works 
bj  W.  H.  Goold,  1850-55  ; 24  vols.,  Philad.  reprint,  1869],  “a  work 
of  gigantic  strength  as  well  as  gigantic  size,”  as  Chalmers  called  it, 
and  containing  a whole  system  of  Puritan  theology) ; Jac.  Peirce 
(Non-conformist,  d.  1726)  ; Sykes  (d.  1756)  ; Carpzov  (d.  1803, 
Exercitat.,  etc.,  1750) ; J.  D.  Michaelis  (2d  ed.,  1780-86,  2 vols.) ; 
Rosenmuller  (1793)  ; Storr  (d.  1805;  Tiib.,  1789) ; Bohme  (Lips., 
1825) ; Mos.  Stuart  (Andover,  1827,  2 vols.,  4th  ed.,  abridged  and 
revised  by  Robbins,  1860)  ; Kuhnol  (1831) ; Friedrich  Bleek  (Prof, 
in  Bonn.,  d.  1859 ; the  large  Com.  in  3 vols.,  Berlin,  1836-40,  an 
exegetical  masterpiece,  most  learned,  critical,  candid,  judicious,  and 
reverential,  though  free  ; his  Lectures  on  Hebrews  were  ed.,  after  his 
death,  by  Windrath,  1868)  ; Tholuck  (Hamburg,  1836,  dedicated  to 
Bunsen,  3d  ed.,  1850,  transl.  by  James  Hamilton,  Edinb.,  1852) ; 
Stier  (1842) ; DeWette  (1847,  2d  ed.) ; Ebrard  (1850,  in  Olshau- 
sen’s  Com.,  vol.  v. ; Engl,  transl.,  Edinb.,  1853)  ; Turner  (new  ed.. 
N.  Y.,  1855) ; Sampson  (ed.  by  Dabney,  N.  Y.,  1856)  ; Lunemann  (in 
Meyer’s  Com.,  1857, 4th  ed.,  1878) ; Delitzsch  (1857,  transl.  by  Th.  L. 
Kingsbury,  Edinb.,  1868, 2 vols.);  John  Brown  (Edinb.,  1862, 2 vols.); 
Reuss  (in  French,  1862) ; Lindsay  (Edinb.,  1867,  2 vols.) ; Moll 
(in  Lange’s  Com.,  translated  and  enlarged  by  Kendrick,  1868) ; Rip- 
ley (1868) ; Kurtz  (1869) ; Ewald  (1870)  ; Hofmann  (1873) ; Blesen- 
thal  (1878) ; Bloomfield  ; Alford  ; Wordsworth  ; W.  Kay  (in  the 
Speaker’s  Com.  N.  T.,  vol.  iv.,  1882) ; Moulton  (in  Ellicott’s  Com. 
for  Engl.  Headers ) ; A.  B.  Davidson  (of  the  New  College,  Edinburgh . 
1882)  ; Angus  (1883)  ; Sam.  T.  Lowrie  (1884)  ; Weiss  (1888). 

II.  The  doctrinal  system  of  the  Ep.  has  been  most  fully  expounded 
by  Riehm  (d.  1888  in  Halle)  : Her  Lehrbegriff  des  Hebrderbriefs, 
Basel  und  Ludwigsburg,  1858-59,  2 vols. ; new  ed.,  1867,  in  1 vol. 
(899  pages).  Comp,  the  expositions  of  Neander,  Messner,  Baub, 
Reuss,  and  Weiss.  On  the  use  of  the  O.  T.,  see  Tholuck  : Has  A. 
T.  im  AT.,  Harnb.,  3d  ed.,  1849  ; on  the  Christology  of  the  Epistle, 
Beyschlag  : Christologie  des  W.  T.  (1866),  176  sqq.  ; on  the  Melchise- 
dek  priesthood,  Auberlen,  in  “ Studien  und  Kritiken  ” for  1657,  pp. 


810 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


453  sqq.  Pfeeiderer,  in  his  Paulinismus  (pp.  324-366),  treats  of 
Hebrews,  together  with  Colossians  and  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  as 
representing  Paulinism  under  the  influence  of  Alexandnnism. 

III.  On  the  introductory  questions,  comp.  Norton  in  the  “ Christian  Ex- 
aminer ” (Boston),  1827-29  ; Oeskausen  : Be  auctore  Ep.  ad  Hebrcron 
(in  Op  use.  tlieol. , 1834)  ; Wieseler  : Untersuchung  iiber  den  Hebriier- 
brief,  Kiel,  1861 ; J.  H.  Thayer  : Authorship  and  Canonicity  of  the  Ep. 
to  the  Hebrews , in  the  “ Bibliotheca  Sacra,”  Andover,  1867  ; Zahn, 
in  Herzog’s  “Encykl.,”  vol.  v.  (1879),  pp.  656-671;  and  articles 
in  “Bible  Dictionaries,”  and  in  “Encycl.  Brit.,”  9th  ed.,  vol.  xi., 
602  sqq. 

The  anonymous  Epistle  “ to  the  Hebrews,”  like  the  Book  of 
Job,  belongs  to  the  order  of  Melchizedek,  combining  priestly 
unction  and  royal  dignity,  but  being  “ without  father,  without 
mother,  without  pedigree,  having  neither  beginning  of  days  nor 
end  of  life  ” (J  : 1-3).  Obscure  in  its  origin,  it  is  clear  and 
deep  in  its  knowledge  of  Christ.  Hailing  from  the  second 
generation  of  Christians  (2  : 3),  it  is  full  of  pentecostal  inspira- 
tion. Traceable  to  no  apostle,  it  teaches,  exhorts,  and  warns 
with  apostolic  authority  and  power.  Though  not  of  Paul’s  pen, 
it  has,  somehow,  the  impress  of  his  genius  and  influence,  and  is 
altogether  worthy  to  occupy  a place  in  the  canon,  after  his 
Epistles,  or  between  them  and  the  Catholic  Epistles.  Pauline 
in  spirit,  it  is  catholic  or  encyclical  in  its  aim.1 

Contents. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  not  an  ordinary  letter.  It  has, 
indeed,  the  direct  personal  appeals,  closing  messages,  and  salu- 
tations of  a letter ; but  it  is  more,  it  is  a homily,  or  rather  a 
theological  discourse,  aiming  to  strengthen  the  readers  in  their 
Christian  faith,  and  to  protect  them  against  the  danger  of  apos- 
tasy from  Christianity.  It  is  a profound  argument  for  the 
superiority  of  Christ  over  the  angels,  over  Moses,  and  over  the 
Levitical  priesthood,  and  for  the  finality  of  the  second  covenant. 
It  unfolds  far  more  fully  than  any  other  book  the  great  idea  of 
the  eternal  priesthood  and  sacrifice  of  Christ,  offered  once  and 


1 See  notes  at  the  end  of  the  section. 


§ 100.  THE  EPISTLE  TO  TIIE  HEBREWS. 


811 


forever  for  the  redemption  of  the  world,  as  distinct  from  th« 
national  and  transient  character  of  the  Mosaic  priesthood  and 
the  ever-repeated  sacrifices  of  the  Tabernacle  and  the  Temple. 
The  author  draws  his  arguments  from  the  Old  Testament  itself, 
showing  that,  by  its  whole  character  and  express  declarations, 
it  is  a preparatory  dispensation  for  the  gospel  salvation,  a sig- 
nificant type  and  prophecy  of  Christianity,  and  hence  destined 
to  pass  away  like  a transient  shadow  of  the  abiding  substance. 
He  implies  that  the  Mosaic  oeconomy  was  still  existing,  with  its 
priests  and  daily  sacrifices,  but  in  process  of  decay,  and  looks 
forward  to  the  fearful  judgment  which  a few  years  afterward 
destroyed  the  Temple  forever.1  He  interweaves  pathetic  ad- 
monitions and  precious  consolations  with  doctrinal  expositions, 
and  every  exhortation  leads  him  to  a new  exposition.  Paul 
puts  the  hortatory  part  usually  at  the  end. 

The  author  undoubtedly  belonged  to  the  Pauline  school, 
which  emphasized  the  great  distinction  between  the  Old  and 
the  New  Covenant ; while  yet  fully  acknowledging  the  divine 
origin  and  paedagogic  use  of  the  former.  But  he  brings  out 
the  superiority  of  Christ’s  priesthood  and  sacrifice  to  the  Mosaic 
priesthood  and  sacrifice ; while  Paul  dwells  mainly  on  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  law  and  the  gospel.  He  lays  chief  stress 
on  faith,  but  he  presents  it  in  its  general  aspect  as  trust  in  God, 
in  its  prospective  reference  to  the  future  and  invisible,  and 
in  its  connection  with  hope  and  perseverance  under  suffering ; 
while  Paul  describes  faith,  in  its  specific  evangelical  character, 
as  a hearty  trust  in  Christ  and  his  atoning  merits,  and  in  its 
justifying  effect,  in  opposition  to  legalistic  reliance  on  works. 
Faith  is  defined,  or  at  least  described,  as  “ assurance  ( viroo-raa-^ :) 
of  things  hoped  for,  a conviction  (eX^^o?)  of  things  not  seen  ” 
(11 : 1).  This  applies  to  the  Old  Testament  as  well  as  the  New, 

1 9 : 9,  “while  as  the  first  tabernacle  is  yet  standing”  (tt)j  ir/x&njs  <r/cr[infe 
ix°v<r‘ns  (TTaaiv) ; vers.  6,  “the  priests  go  in  continually”  ( ehrlatriy , not 
went  in , as  in  the  E V.);  8 : 4 ; 13  : 10  ; 6 : 8;  8 : 13 ; 10  : 25,  27;  12  : 27. 
Those  who  assign  the  composition  to  a time  after  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem, deprive  the  present  tenses  of  their  natural  import  and  proper  effect. 


812 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


and  hence  appropriately  opens  the  catalogue  of  patriarchs  and 
prophets,  who  encourage  Christian  believers  in  their  conflict; 
but  they  are  to  look  still  more  to  Jesus  as  “ the  author  and 
perfecter  of  our  faith  ” (12  : 2),  who  is,  after  all,  the  unchanging 
object  of  our  faith,  “ the  same  yesterday,  and  to-day,  and  for 
ever  ” (13  : 8). 

The  Epistle  is  eminently  Christological.  It  resembles  in  this 
respect  Colossians  and  Philippian s,  and  forms  a stepping-stone 
to  the  Christology  of  John.  From  the  sublime  description 
of  the  exaltation  and  majesty  of  Christ  in  ch.  1 : 1-4  (comp. 
Col.  1 : 15-20),  there  is  only  one  step  to  the  prologue  of  the 
fourth  Gospel.  The  exposition  of  the  high  priesthood  of  Christ 
reminds  one  of  the  sacerdotal  prayer  (John  17). 

The  use  of  proof -texts  from  the  Old  Testament  seems  at 
times  contrary  to  the  obvious  historical  import  of  the  passage, 
but  is  always  ingenious,  and  was,  no  doubt,  convincing  to  Jew- 
ish readers.  The  writer  does  not  distinguish  between  typical 
and  direct  prophecies.  He  recognizes  the  typical,  or  rather 
antitypical,  character  of  the  Tabernacle  and  its  services,  as  re- 
flecting the  archetype  seen  by  Moses  in  the  mount,  but  all  the 
Messianic  prophecies  are  explained  as  direct  (1  : 5-14 ; 2:11- 
13  ; 10  : 5-10).  He  betrays  throughout  a High  order  of  Greek 
culture,  profound  knowledge  of  the  Greek  Scriptures,  and  the 
symbolical  import  of  the  Mosaic  worship.1 2  He  was  also  familiar 
with  the  Alexandrian  theosophy  of  Philo,3  but  he  never  intro- 
duces foreign  ideas  into  the  Scriptures,  as  Philo  did  by  his 

1 The  charge  of  partial  ignorance  of  the  Jewish  ritual  is  unfounded,  and 
can  therefore  not  be  made  an  argument  either  for  or  against  the  Pauline 
authorship.  In  the  genuine  text  of  10  : 11,  the  high  priest  is  not  mentioned, 
but  the  priest  (Upevs),  and  in  7 : 27  the  high  priest  is  not  asserted  to  offer 
daily  sacrifice,  but  to  need  daily  repentance.  The  altar  of  incense  is  placed 
in  the  holy  of  holies,  9:4;  but  this  seems  to  have  been  a current  opinion, 
which  is  also  mentioned  in  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch.  See  Harnaok  in 
41  Studien  und  Kritiken”  for  1876,  p.  572,  and  W.  R.  Smith  in  “ Enc.  Brit.,” 
xi.,  606. 

2 See  Carpzov,  Sacra  Exercitationes  in  Ep.  ad  Heb.  ex  PhiJone  Alex.  (Helm- 
stadii,  1750)  ; Riehrn,  l.c.,  pp.  9 sqq.  ; Hilgenfeld,  Einleit .,  p.  384  ; and  Pflei- 

derer,  Paulinismus. 


§ 100.  TIIE  EPISTLE  TO  TIIE  HEBREWS. 


813 


allegorical  interpretation,  llis  exhortations  and  warnings  go 
to  the  quick  of  the  moral  sensibility  ; and  yet  his  tone  is  also 
cheering  and  encouraging.  He  had  the  charisma  of  exhortation 
and  consolation  in  the  highest  degree.1  Altogether,  he  was  a 
man  full  of  faith  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  gifted  with  a tongue 
of  tire. 


The  Style. 

Hebrews  is  written  in  purer  Greek  than  any  book  of  the  New 
Testament,  except  those  portions  of  Luke  where  he  is  indepen- 
dent of  prior  documents.  The  Epistle  begins,  like  the  third 
Gospel,  with  a rich  and  elegant  period  of  classic  construction. 
The  description  of  the  heroes  of  faith  in  the  eleventh  chapter 
is  one  of  the  most  eloquent  and  sublime  in  the  entire  history  of 
religious  literature.  He  often  reasons  a minori  ad  majus  (ec 
. . . irocrto  fiaWov).  He  uses  a number  of  rare  and  choice 
terms  which  occur  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament.2 

As  compared  with  the  undoubted  Epistles  of  Paul,  the  style 
of  Hebrews  is  less  fiery  and  forcible,  but  smoother,  more  cor- 
rect, rhetorical,  rhythmical,  and  free  from  anacolutha  and  sole- 
cisms. There  is  not  that  rush  and  vehemence  which  bursts 
through  ordinary  rules,  but  a calm  and  regular  flow  of  speech. 
The  sentences  are  skilfully  constructed  and  well  rounded.  Paul 
is  bent  exclusively  on  the  thought ; the  author  of  Hebrew’s  evi- 
dently paid  great  attention  to  the  form.  Though  not  strictly 
classical,  his  style  is  as  pure  as  the  Hellenistic  dialect  and  the 
close  affinity  with  the  Septuagint  permit. 

All  these  considerations  exclude  the  idea  of  a translation 
from  a supposed  Hebrew  original. 

The  Readers. 

The  Epistle  is  addressed  to  the  Hebrew  Christians,  that  is, 
according  to  the  usual  distinction  between  Hebrews  and  Hel- 
lenists (Acts  6:1;  9 : 27),  to  the  converted  Jews  in  Palestine, 

1 The  Epistle  is  called  a \6yos  Trapcuc\r}<rf<as}  13  : 22 ; comp.  12  : 5 ; 6 : 18. 

* See  note  II.  at  the  close. 


814 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


chiefly  to  those  in  Jerusalem.  To  them  it  is  especially  adapted. 
They  lived  in  sight  of  the  Temple,  and  were  exposed  to  the 
persecution  of  the  hierarchy  and  the  temptation  of  apostasy. 
This  has  been  the  prevailing  view  from  the  time  of  Chrysostom 
to  Bleek.1 2  The  objection  that  the  Epistle  quotes  the  Old  Tes- 
tament uniformly  after  the  Septuagint  is  not  conclusive,  since 
the  Septuagint  was  undoubtedly  used  in  Palestine  alongside 
with  the  Hebrew  original. 

Other  views  more  or  less  improbable  need  only  be  men- 
tioned : (1)  All  the  Christian  Jews  as  distinct  from  the  Gen- 
tiles ; 3 (2)  the  Jews  of  Jerusalem  alone ; 3 (3)  the  Jews  of  Alex- 
andria;4 5 (4)  the  Jews  of  Antioch;6  (5)  the  Jews  of  Pome;* 
(6)  some  community  of  the  dispersion  in  the  East  (but  not 
Jerusalem).7 


Occasion  and  Aim. 

The  Epistle  was  prompted  by  the  desire  to  strengthen  and 
comfort  the  readers  in  their  trials  and  persecutions  (10  : 32-39 ; 
ch.  11  and  12),  but  especially  to  warn  them  against  the  danger 
of  apostasy  to  Judaism  (2  : 2,  3 ; 3 : 6,  14 ; 4:1,  14 ; 6 : 1-8 ; 
10 : 23,  26-31).  And  this  could  be  done  best  by  showing  the 
infinite  superiority  of  Christianity,  and  the  awful  guilt  of 
neglecting  so  great  a salvation. 

Strange  that  but  thirty  years  after  the  resurrection  and  the 

1 So  also  DeWette,  Tholuck,  Thiersch,  Delitzsch,  Lunemann,  Riehm,  Moll 
(in  Lange’s  Com.),  Langen,  Weiss. 

2 So  (Ecumenius,  Lightfoot,  Lange ; also  Grimm  (sub  verbo) : “ Omnes  de 
Judceis  sive  aramaice  sive  grace  Idquentibus  CJirutiahi .” 

3 Ebrard.  Moulton,  on  the  contrary,  thinks  that  some  other  church  in 
Palestine  is  addressed,  and  that  Jerusalem  is  excluded  by  ch.  2 : 3. 

4 Wieseler  (who  adds  an  unlikely  reference  to  the  temple  of  Onias  in  Leon- 
topolis),  Credner,  Baur,  Hilgenfeld,  Kostlin,  Reuss,  Bunsen,  Conybeare  and 
Howson,  and  Plumptre. 

5 Yon  Hofmann. 

c Wetstein,  Alford,  Holtzmann,  Kurtz,  Zahn  ; also  Renan,  who  thinks 
(D Antechrist.  p.  211)  that  the  Ep.  was  written  by  Barnabas  in  Ephesus,  and 
addressed  to  the  church  in  Rome  ; hence  it  was  first  known  in  Rome. 

• A.  B.  Davidson  (Ep.  to  the  Hebr .,  1882,  p.  18). 


§ 100.  THE  EPISTLE  TO  TnE  HEBREWS.  815 

penteoostal  effusion  of  the  Spirit,  there  should  have  been  such  a 
danger  of  apostasy  in  the  very  mother  church  of  Christendom. 
And  yet  not  strange,  if  we  realize  the  condition  of  things  be- 
tween 60  and  70.  The  Christians  in  Jerusalem  were  the  most 
conservative  of  all  believers,  and  adhered  as  closely  as  possible 
to  the  traditions  of  their  fathers.  They  were  contented  with 
the  elementary  doctrines,  and  needed  to  be  pressed  on  “ unto 
perfection”  (5:12;  G : 1-4).  The  Epistle  of  James  represents 
their  doctrinal  stand  point.  The  strange  advice  which  he  gave 
to  his  brother  Paul,  on  his  last  visit,  reflects  their  timidity  and 
narrowness.  Although  numbered  by  “ myriads,”  they  made 
no  attempt  in  that  critical  moment  to  rescue  the  great  apostle 
from  the  hands  of  the  fanatical  Jews  ; they  were  “ all  zealous 
for  the  law,”  and  afraid  of  the  radicalism  of  Paul  on  hearing 
that  he  was  teaching  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  “ to  forsake 
Moses,  telling  them  not  to  circumcise  their  children,  neither  to 
walk  after  the  customs  ” (Acts  21 : 20,  21). 

They  hoped  against  hope  for  the  conversion  of  their  people. 
When  that  hope  vanished  more  and  more,  when  some  of  their 
teachers  had  suffered  martyrdom  (13  : 7),  when  James,  their  re- 
vered leader,  was  stoned  by  the  Jews  (62),  and  when  the  patriotic 
movement  for  the  deliverance  of  Palestine  from  the  hated  yoke 
of  the  heathen  Pomans  rose  higher  and  higher,  till  it  burst  out 
at  last  in  open  rebellion  (66),  it  was  very  natural  that  those  timid 
Christians  should  feel  strongly  tempted  to  apostatize  from  the 
poor,  persecuted  sect  to  the  national  religion,  which  they  at  heart 
still  believed  to  be  the  best  part  of  Christianity.  The  solemn 
services  of  the  Temple,  the  ritual  pomp  and  splendor  of  the 
Aaronic  priesthood,  the  daily  sacrifices,  and  all  the  sacred  asso- 
ciations of  the  past  had  still  a great  charm  for  them,  and 
allured  them  to  their  embrace.  The  danger  was  very  strong, 
and  the  warning  of  the  Epistle  fearfully  solemn. 

Similar  dangers  have  occurred  again  and  again  in  critical 
periods  of  history. 


816 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Time  and  Place  of  Composition. 

The  Epistle  hails  and  sends  greetings  from  some  place  in 
Italy,  at  a time  when  Timothy,  Paul’s  disciple,  was  set  at  lib- 
erty, and  the  writer  was  on  the  point  of  paying,  with  Timothy, 
a visit  to  his  readers  (13  : 23,  24).  The  passage,  “Remember 
them  that  are  in  bonds,  as  bound  with  them  ” (13  : 3),  does  not 
necessarily  imply  that  he  himself  was  in  prison,  indeed  verse  23 
seems  to  imply  his  freedom.  These  notices  naturally  suggest 
the  close  of  Paul’s  first  Roman  imprisonment,  in  the  spring  of 
the  year  63,  or  soon  after ; for  Timothy  and  Luke  were  with 
him  there,  and  the  writer  himself  evidently  belonged  to  the 
circle  of  his  friends  and  fellow-workers. 

There  is  further  internal  evidence  that  the  letter  was  written 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (TO),  before  the  outbreak  of 
the  Jewish  war  (66),  before  the  Neronian  persecution  (in  July, 
64),  and  before  Paul’s  martyrdom.  None  of  these  important 
events  are  even  alluded  to ; 1 on  the  contrary,  as  already  re- 
marked, the  Temple  was  still  standing,  with  its  daily  sacrifices 
regularly  going  on,  and  the  doom  of  the  theocracy  was  still 
in  the  future,  though  “nigh  unto  a curse,”  “becoming  old 
and  ready  to  vanish  away ; ” it  was  “ shaken  ” and  about  to 
be  removed ; the  day  of  the  fearful  judgment  was  drawing 
nigh.2 

The  place  of  composition  vras  either  Rome  or  some  place  in 

1 Zahn  refers  10  : 32-34  to  the  Neronian  persecution;  but  this  is  excluded 
by  12  : 4,  “Ye  have  not  yet  resisted  unto  blood”  (jjlcxp 1 cdfiaros).  Harnack 
finds  also  traces  of  the  Domitian  persecution.  Still  more  unlikely. 

2 Lardner,  Thiersch,  Lindsay,  Bullock  (in  Smith’s  B.  Diet.,  Am.  ed.,  II., 
1028),  and  others,  assign  the  Epistle  to  a.d.  63  ; DeWette,  Moll,  and  Lange 
to  between  62  and  66  (between  the  death  of  James  and  the  outbreak  of  the 
Jewish  war) ; Ebrard  to  62  ; Wieseler  ( Chronol . des  Ap.  Zeitalters , p.  519)  to 
July,  64  ; Stuart  and  Tholuck  to  about  64  ; Weiss  to  65  (“  bald  nach  der  Mitte 
der  sechsziger  Jalire  ”) ; Hilgenfeld  to  between  64  and  66  ; Davidson  ( Introd ., 
revised  ed.,  I.  222)  to  66  ; Ewald  to  67 ; Renan  and  Kay  to  65.  On  the  other 
hand,  Zahn  gives  as  the  date  A.D.  80,  Holtzmann  and  Harnack  about  90,  Yolk- 
mar  and  Keim,  116-118.  These  late  dates  are  simply  impossible,  not  only 
for  intrinsic  reasons  and  the  allusion  to  Timothy,  but  also  because  Clement  of 
Rome,  who  wrote  about  95,  shows  a perfect  familiarity  with  Hebrews. 


§ 100.  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 


817 


Southern  Italy,  if  we  assume  that  the  writer  had  already  started 
on  his  journey  to  the  East.1 *  Others  assign  it  to  Alexandria,  or 
Antioch,  or  Ephesus.* 


Authorship. 

This  is  still  a matter  of  dispute,  and  will  probably  never  be 
decided  with  absolute  certainty.  The  obscurity  of  its  origin  is 
the  reason  why  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  ranked  among 
the  seven  Antileg omena  of  the  ante-Nicene  church.  The  con- 
troversy ceased  after  the  adoption  of  the  traditional  canon  in 
397,  but  revived  again  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation.  The 
different  theories  may  be  arranged  under  three  heads : (1)  sole 
authorship  of  Paul ; (2)  sole  authorship  of  one  of  his  pupils ; 
(3)  joint  authorship  of  Paul  and  one  of  his  pupils.  Among  the 
pupils  again  the  views  are  subdivided  between  Luke,  Barnabas, 
Clement  of  Rome,  Silvanus,  and  Apollos.3 

1.  The  Pauline  authorship  was  the  prevailing  opinion  of 
the  church  from  the  fourth  century  to  the  eighteenth,  with  the 
exception  of  the  Reformers,  and  was  once  almost  an  article  of 


1 The  inference  of  the  place  from  ol  anrb  tvs  T TaAlcts,  13  : 24,  is  uncertain, 
since  in  the  epistolary  style  it  may  imply  that  the  writer  was  at  that  time 
out  of  Italy,  or  in  Italy  (which  would  be  more  distinctly  expressed  by  4y 
'lraXla  or  ol  e£).  The  brethren  may  have  been  fugitives  from  Italy  (so  Bleek). 
But  the  latter  view  seems  more  natural,  and  is  defended  by  Theodoret,  who 
knew  Greek  as  his  mother  tongue.  Tholuck  and  Ebrard  quote  the  phrases 
ol  curb  yrjs  and  ol  curb  baAdvo-vs,  travellers  by  land  and  sea,  and  from  Poly- 
bius, ol  cc7 rb  Trj s ' AAe^avdpelas  fiaaiAels,  the  Alexandrian  kings.  Still  more  to 
the  point  is  Pseudo-Ignatius  Ad  Her.  8,  quoted  by  Zahn  (see  his  ed.  of  Ign., 
p.  270,  12)  : dfnrd^pvral  ore  ...  . irdvres  ol  birb  ^tAxirTrusv  ev  XPl<rTV>  °T€y  Kai 
eTre(rT€i\d  cot. 

° The  Sinaitic  MS.  and  C have  the  subscription  “ to  the  Hebrews,”  A adds 
“from  Rome,”  K “from  Italy.”  Sam.  Davidson  dates  it  from  Alexandria, 
Renan  from  Ephesus,  where  he  thinks  Barnabas  was  at  that  time  with  some 
fugitive  Italians,  while  Timothy  was  imprisoned  perhaps  at  Corinth  ( L'Ante - 
Christ,  p.  210). 

3 For  the  patristic  testimonies,  I refer  to  the  collection  in  Charteris,  Canon- 
(city , pp.  272-288 ; for  a candid  and  exhaustive  discussion  of  the  whole  ques- 
tion, to  Bleek’s  large  Com.,  I.,  82-272  ; also  to  Alford’s  Com. , voL  iv.,  Part 

I.,  pp.  1-62 


818 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


faith,  but  has  now  very  few  defenders  among  scholars.1  It 
rests  on  the  following  arguments : 

(a)  The  unanimous  tradition  of  the  Eastern  church,  to  which 
the  letter  was  in  all  probability  directed  ; yet  with  the  impor- 
tant qualification  which  weakens  the  force  of  this  testimony, 
that  there  was  a widely  prevailing  perception  of  a difference  of 
style,  and  consequent  supposition  of  a Hebrew  original,  of  which 
there  is  no  historic  basis  whatever.  Clement  of  Alexandria 
ascribed  the  Greek  composition  to  Luke.2  Origen  observes  the 
greater  purity  of  the  Greek  style,3  and  mentions  Luke  and  Cle- 
ment, besides  Paul,  as  possible  authors,  but  confesses  his  own 
ignorance.4 

( b ) The  mention  of  Timothy  and  the  reference  to  a release 
from  captivity  (13  : 23)  point  to  Paul.  Hot  necessarily,  but  only 
to  the  circle  of  Paul.  The  alleged  reference  to  Paul’s  own  captiv- 
ity in  10  : 34  rests  on  a false  reading  ( Seo-fiol?  /aov,  E.  V.,  “ in  my 
bonds,”  instead  of  the  one  now  generally  adopted,  tois  Beo-fiiois, 
“ those  that  were  in  bonds  ”).  Hor  does  the  request,  ch.  13 : 18, 
19,  imply  that  the  writer  was  a prisoner  at  the  time  of  compo- 
sition ; for  v.  23  rather  points  to  his  freedom,  as  he  expected 
shortly  to  see  his  readers  in  company  with  Timothy. 

(<?)  The  agreement  of  the  Epistle  with  Paul’s  system  of  doc- 
trine, the  tone  of  apostolic  authority,  and  the  depth  and  unction 
which  raises  the  Epistle  to  a par  with  his  genuine  writings. 
But  all  that  can  be  said  in  praise  of  this  wonderful  Epistle  at 


1 Yon  Hofmann  (of  Erlangen)  is  almost  the  only  one  in  Germany  ; Bishop 
Wordsworth  and  Dr.  Kay  in  England.  Among  the  older  defenders  of  the 
Pauline  authorship  we  mention  Owen  (1668),  Mill  (1707),  Carpzov  (1750), 
Bengel  (1752),  Sykes  (1755),  Andr.  Cramer  (1757),  Storr  (1789),  and  especially 
the  learned  and  acute  Roman  Catholic  scholar,  Hug,  in  his  Einleitung. 

2 Dr.  Biesenthal  has,  by  a retranslation  of  the  Ep.  into  Hebrew,  endeavored 

to  prove  this  theory  in  4 4 Das  TrosUchreiben  des  Ap.  Pavlus  an  die  Hebrder 
Leipz. , 1878.  But,  of  course,  this  is  no  argumeut  any  more  than  Delitzsch’s 
Hebrew  translation  of  the  entire  New  Testament.  Such  happy  phrases  as 
iroAvfxepus  Kal  iro\vTp6iru>s  (1  : 1)  and  a<p*  &y  eirc&ev  r^v  viraKoijV  (5  : 8) 

cannot  be  reproduced  in  Hebrew  at  all. 

* <rui/&eV«  tt)s  \ e{e<»s  kW-qvucurrepa.  Ap.  Euseb.  II.  E.  VI.  25. 

* r Is  Si  6 ypdif/as  t)jv  hriaro\^vy  rb  /xbv  aArjdcs  ol$ev. 


§ 100.  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.  819 

best  proves  only  its  inspiration  and  canonicity,  which  must  be 
extended  beyond  the  circle  of  the  apostles  so  as  to  embrace  the 
writings  of  Luke,  Mark,  James,  and  Jude. 

2.  The  non-Pauline  authorship  is  supported  by  the  follow- 
ing arguments : 

(a)  The  Western  tradition,  both  Roman  and  North  African, 
down  to  the  time  of  Augustin,  is  decidedly  against  the  Pauline 
authorship.  This  has  all  the  more  weight  from  the  fact  that 
the  earliest  traces  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  are  found  in 
the  Roman  church,  where  it  was  known  before  the  close  of  the 
first  century.  Clement  of  Rome  makes  very  extensive  use  of 
it,  but  nowhere  under  the  name  of  Paul.  The  Muratorian 
Canon  enumerates  only  thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul  and  omits 
Hebrews.  So  does  Gaius,  a Roman  presbyter,  at  the  beginning 
of  the  third  century.  Tertullian  ascribed  the  Epistle  to  Barna- 
bas. According  to  the  testimony  of  Eusebius,  the  Roman 
church  did  not  regard  the  Epistle  as  Pauline  at  his  day  (he  died 
340).  Philastrius  of  Brescia  (d.  about  387)  mentions  that  some 
denied  the  Pauline  authorship,  because  the  passage  6 : 4-6 
favored  the  heresy  and  excessive  disciplinary  rigor  of  the  Nova- 
tians,  but  he  himself  believed  it  to  be  Paul’s,  and  so  did 
Ambrose  of  Milan.  Jerome  (d.  419)  can  be  quoted  on  both 
sides.  He  wavered  in  his  own  view,  but  expressly  says : “ The 
Latin  custom  ( Latina  consuetudo)  does  not  receive  it  among  the 
canonical  Scriptures ; ” and  in  another  place  : “ All  the  Greeks 
receive  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  some  Latins  ( et  non - 
nulli  Latinorum ).”  Augustin,  a profound  divine,  but  neither 
linguist  nor  critic,  likewise  wavered,  but  leaned  strongly  toward 
the  Pauline  origin.  The  prevailing  opinion  in  the  West 
ascribed  only  thirteen  Epistles  to  Paul.  The  Synod  of  Hippo 
(393)  and  the  third  Synod  of  Carthage  (397),  under  the  com- 
manding influence  of  Augustin,  marked  a transition  of  opinion 
in  favor  of  fourteen.1  This  opinion  prevailed  until  Erasmus  and 
the  Reformers  revived  the  doubts  of  the  early  Fathers.  The 
Council  of  Trent  sanctioned  it. 

1 “ Pauli  Apostoli  epistolas  tredecim , ejusdem  ad  Hebrews  una." 


820 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


( b ) The  absence  of  the  customary  name  and  salutation.  Thh 
has  been  explained  from  modesty,  as  Paul  was  sent  to  the  Gen- 
tiles rather  than  the  Jews  (Pantaenus),  or  from  prudence  and 
the  desire  to  secure  a better  hearing  from  Jews  who  were 
strongly  prejudiced  against  Paul  (Clement  of  Alexandria). 
Yery  unsatisfactory  and  set  aside  by  the  authoritative  tone  of 
the  Epistle. 

( c ) In  ch.  2 : 3 the  writer  expressly  distinguishes  himself 
from  the  apostles,  and  reckons  himself  with  the  second  genera- 
tion of  Christians,  to  whom  the  word  of  the  Lord  was  “con- 
firmed by  them  that  heard  ” it  at  the  first  from  the  Lord.  Paul, 
on  the  contrary,  puts  himself  on  a par  with  the  other  apostles, 
and  derives  his  doctrine  directly  from  Christ,  without  any 
human  intervention  (Gal.  1 : 1,  12,  15, 16).  This  passage  alone 
is  conclusive,  and  decided  Luther,  Calvin,  and  Beza  against  the 
Pauline  authorship.1 

(< d ) The  difference,  not  in  the  substance,  but  in  the  form  and 
method  of  teaching  and  arguing.2 

( e ) The  difference  of  style  (which  has  already  been  discussed). 
This  argument  does  not  rest  on  the  number  of  peculiar  words, 
for  such  are  found  in  every  book  of  the  Hew  Testament,  but 
in  the  superior  purity,  correctness,  and  rhetorical  finish  of 
style. 

(/*)  The  difference  in  the  quotations  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. The  author  of  Hebrews  follows  uniformly  the  Septua- 
gint,  even  with  its  departures  from  the  Hebrew ; while  Paul  is 
more  independent,  and  often  corrects  the  Septuagint  from  the 
Hebrew.  Bleek  has  also  discovered  the  important  fact  that  the 


1 Calvin  : Scriptor  unum  se  ex  apostolorum  discipulis  profitetur , quod  est  a 

Paulina  consuetudine  longe  alienum And  on  2 : 3,  u Hie  locus  indicio  est , 
epistolam  a Paulo  non  fuisse  composilam ,”  etc. 

2 As  Calvin  expresses  it : u Ipsa  docendi  ratio  et  stilus  alium  quam  Paulum 
esse  satis  testantur.  ” On  this  point,  see  especially  Riehm’s  valuable  Lehrbegriff, 
etc. , and  the  respective  sections  in  the  works  on  the  N.  T.  Theology ; also 
Kurtz’s  Com.,  pp.  24  sqq.  The  parallelisms  which  Dr.  Kay  sets  against  this 
argument  in  the  Speaker’s  Com.,pp.  14  sqq.,  only  prove  what  nobody  denies . 
the  essential  agreement  of  Hebrews  with  the  Pauline  Epistles. 


§ 100.  THE  EPISTLE  TO  TIIE  HEBREWS. 


821 


former  used  the  text  of  Codex  Alexandrinus,  the  latter  the  text 
of  Codex  Vaticanus.1  It  is  incredible  that  Paul,  writing  to  the 
church  of  Jerusalem,  should  not  have  made  use  of  his  Hebrew 
and  rabbinical  learning  in  quoting  the  Scriptures. 

3 Conjectures  concerning  the  probable  author.  Four  Paul- 
ine disciples  and  co-workers  have  been  proposed,  either  as  sole 
or  as  joint  authors  with  Paul,  three  with  some  support  in 
tradition — Barnabas,  Luke,  and  Clement — one  without  any — 
Apollos.  Silvanus  also  has  a few  advocates.2 

(i a ) Barnabas.8  lie  has  in  his  favor  the  tradition  of  the 

African  church  (at  least  Tertullian),  his  Levitical  training,  his 
intimacy  with  Paul,  his  close  relation  to  the  church  in  Jeru- 
salem, and  his  almost  apostolic  authority.  As  the  uto?  irapa- 
icXyo-ecos  (Acts  4 : 36),  he  may  have  written  the  Aoyo?  n rapcuc\rj- 
aem  (Heb.  13  : 22).  But  in  this  case  he  cannot  be  the  author 
of  the  Epistle  which  goes  by  his  name,  and  which,  although 
belonging  to  the  Pauline  and  strongly  anti-Judaizing  tendency, 
is  yet  far  inferior  to  Hebrews  in  spirit  and  wisdom.  Moreover, 
Barnabas  was  a primitive  disciple,  and  cannot  be  included  in 
the  second  generation  (2  : 3). 

( b ) Luke.4  He  answers  the  description  of  2 : 3,  writes  pure 
Greek,  and  has  many  affinities  in  style.6  But  against  him  is 

1 See  the  proof  in  Bleek,  vol.  I.  338-375.  Conveniently  ignored  in  the 
Speaker’s  Com.,  p.  13. 

2 Of  the  other  friends  of  Paul,  Timothy  is  excluded  by  the  reference  to  him 
in  ch.  13  : 23.  Mark,  Demas,  Titus,  Tychicus,  Epaphroditus,  Epaphras, 
Aristarchus,  Aquila,  Jesus  Justus  have  never  been  brought  forward  as  candi- 
dates. Silvanus,  or  Silas,  is  favorably  mentioned  by  Bohme,  Mynster,  and 
Riehm  (890  sqq.),  on  account  of  his  prominent  position,  Acts  15  : 22,  27,  34, 
40 ; 16  : 19  ; 1 Pet.  5 : 12. 

3 Tertullian,  Ullmann,  Wieseler,  Thiersch,  Ritschl,  Renan,  Zahn.  W.  R. 
Smith  (in  the  “Enc.  Brit.”)  likewise  leans  to  the  Barnabas  hypothesis. 

4 Clement  of  Alexandria  (who,  however,  regarded  Luke  only,  and  wrongly, 
as  translator),  Calvin,  Grotius.  Crell,  Ebrard,  Delitzsch,  Dollinger.  Ebrard 
supposes  that  Luke  wrote  the  Epistle  at  the  request  and  in  the  name  of  Paul, 
who  suggested  the  general  plan  and  leading  ideas.  This  is  the  most  plausible 
form  of  the  Luke  hypothesis,  but  does  not  account  for  the  doctrinal  differ, 
ences. 

5 This  linguistic  argument  has  been  overdone  by  Delitzsch  and  weakened  by 
fanciful  or  far-fetched  analogies.  8ee  the  strictures  of  Lunemann,  pp.  24-31. 


822 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


the  fact  that  the  author  of  Hebrews  was,  no  doubt,  a native 
Jew,  while  Luke  was  a Gentile  (Col.  4 : 11, 14).  This  objection, 
however,  ceases  in  a measure  if  Luke  wrote  in  the  name  and 
under  the  instruction  of  Paul. 

(c)  Clemens  Pomanus.1  He  makes  thorough  use  of  Hebrews 
and  interweaves  passages  from  the  Epistle  with  his  own  ideas, 
but  evidently  as  an  imitator,  far  inferior  in  originality  and 
force. 

( d ) Apollos.2 3 * * * *  A happy  guess  of  the  genius  of  Luther,  sug- 
gested by  the  description  given  of  Apollos  in  the  Acts  (18  : 24- 
28),  and  by  Paul  (1  Cor.  1:12;  3 : 4-6,  22 ; 4 : 6 ; 16  : 12 ; 
Tit.  3 : 13).  Apollos  was  a Jew  of  Alexandria,  mighty  in  the 
Scriptures,  fervent  in  spirit,  eloquent  in  speech,  powerfully 
confuting  the  Jews,  a friend  of  Paul,  and  independently  work- 
ing with  him  in  the  same  cause  at  Ephesus,  Corinth,  Crete. 
So  far  everything  seems  to  fit.  But  this  hypothesis  has  not 
a shadow  of  support  in  tradition,  which  could  hardly  have 
omitted  Apollos  in  silence  among  the  three  or  four  probable 
authors.  Clement  names  him  once,8  but  not  as  the  author  of 
the  Epistle  which  he  so  freely  uses.  Nor  is  there  any  trace 
of  his  ever  having  been  in  Pome,  and  having  stood  in  so  close 
a relationship  to  the  Hebrew  Christians  in  Palestine. 

The  learned  discussion  of  modern  divines  lias  led  to  no  cer- 
tain and  unanimous  conclusion,  but  is,  nevertheless,  very  valu- 
able, and  sheds  light  in  different  directions.  The  following 
points  may  be  regarded  as  made  certain,  or  at  least  in  the 
highest  degree  probable : the  author  of  Hebrews  was  a Jew  by 


1 Mentioned  as  a subjective  conjecture  by  Origen  (KA-^u^y  6 yevSnevos  M- 
(Tkottos  'Pa)/xal(ov  eypaipe  tt}v  imaroKiiy)  alongside  with  Luke.  Renewed  by 

Erasmus  and  Bisping. 

3 Luther,  Osiander,  Norton,  Semler,  Bleek,  Tholuck,  Credner,  Reuss, 

Bunsen,  Hilgenfeld,  Lange,  Moll,  Kendrick,  Alford,  Liinemann,  Kurtz, 

Samuel  Davidson,  A.  B.  Davidson.  The  Apollos  hypothesis  has  been  the 

most  popular  until,  within  the  last  few  years,  Renan,  Zahn,  and  W.  Robertson 

Smith  have  turned  the  current  again  in  favor  of  the  Barnabas  hypothesis. 
Riehm,  after  a full  and  judicious  discussion,  wavers  between  Apollos  and 
Silvanus,  but  ends  with  Origen’s  modest  confession  of  ignorance  (p.  894j. 

3 Ep.  ad  Cor.,  c.  47. 


§ 100.  TIIE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 


823 


birth ; a Hellenist,  not  a Palestinian ; thoroughly  at  home  in 
the  Greek  Scriptures  (less  so,  if  at  all,  in  the  Hebrew  original) ; 
familiar  with  the  Alexandrian  Jewish  theology  (less  so,  if  at  all, 
with  the  rabbinical  learning  of  Palestine) ; a pupil  of  the  apos- 
tles (not  himself  an  apostle) ; an  independent  disciple  and  co- 
worker of  Paul ; a friend  of  Timothy  ; in  close  relation  with 
the  Hebrew  Christians  of  Palestine,  and,  when  he  wrote,  on  the 
point  of  visiting  them ; an  inspired  man  of  apostolic  insight, 
power,  and  authority,  and  hence  worthy  of  a position  in  the 
canon  as  “ the  great  unknown.” 

Beyond  these  marks  we  cannot  go  with  safety.  The  writer 
purposely  withholds  his  name.  The  arguments  for  Barnabas, 
Luke,  and  Apollos,  as  well  as  the  objections  against  them,  are 
equally  strong,  and  we  have  no  data  to  decide  between  them, 
not  to  mention  other  less  known  workers  of  the  apostolic  age. 
We  must  still  confess  with  Origen  that  God  only  knows  the 
author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 

Notes. 

I. — The  Position  of  Hebrews  in  the  New  Testament.  In  the  old 
Greek  MSS.  (&$,  B,  C,  D)  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  stands  before  the 
Pastoral  Epistles,  as  being  an  acknowledged  letter  of  Paul.  This  order 
has,  perhaps,  a chronological  value,  and  is  followed  in  the  critical  edi- 
tions (Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  Westcott  and  Hort),  although 
Westcott  and  Hort  regard  the  Pastoral  Epistles  as  Pauline,  and  the  Ep. 
to  the  Hebrews  as  un-Pauline.  See  their  Gr.  Test.,  vol.  II.,  321. 

But  in  the  Latin  and  English  Bibles,  Hebrews  stands  more  appro- 
priately at  the  close  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and  immediately  precedes 
the  Catholic  Epistles. 

Luther,  who  had  some  doctrinal  objections  to  Hebrews  and  James, 
took  the  liberty  of  putting  them  after  the  Epistles  of  Peter  and  John, 
and  making  them  the  last  Epistles  except  Jude.  He  misunderstood 
Heb.  6 : 4-6 ; 10  : 26,  27 ; 12  : 17,  as  excluding  the  possibility  of  a second 
repentance  and  pardon  after  baptism,  and  called  these  passages  “hard 
knots  ” that  run  counter  to  all  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  of  Paul ; but, 
apart  from  this,  he  declared  Hebrews  to  be  “an  Epistle  of  exquisite 
beauty,  discussing  from  Scripture,  with  masterly  skill  and  thorough- 
ness, the  priesthood  of  Christ,  and  interpreting  on  this  point  the  Old 
Testament  with  great  richness  and  acuteness.” 

The  English  Revisers  retained,  without  any  documentary  evidence, 


824 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


the  traditional  title,  “ The  Epistle  of  Paul  the  Apostle  to  the  Hebrews.” 
This  gives  sanction  to  a particular  theory,  and  is  properly  objected  to 
by  the  American  Revisers.  The  Pauline  authorship  is,  to  say  the  least, 
an  open  question,  and  should  have  been  left  open  by  the  Revisers.  The 
ancient  authorities  entitle  the  letter  simply,  Ifyos  ‘E/Spmovy,  and  even 
this  was  probably  added  by  the  hand  of  an  early  transcriber.  Still  less 
is  the  subscription  “Written  to  the  Hebrews  from  Italy  by  Timothy  ” 
to  be  relied  on  as  original,  and  was  probably  a mere  inference  from  the 
contents  (13 : 23,  24). 

II. — The  Hapaxlegomena  of  the  Epistle.  dycveaXoyrjros,  without 
pedigree  (said  of  Melchizedek),  7 : 3.  dprjrap,  motherless,  7 : 3.  dnuTap, 
fatherless,  7 : 3.  dnavyacTua,  effulgence  (said  of  Christ  in  relation  to 
God),  1 : 2.  ala^rjrrjpLov,  sense,  5 : 14.  aKpoft'iviov,  spoils,  7 : 4.  cvnepia* 
raros  (from  ev  and  nepuarrjpi,  to  place  round),  a difficult  word  of  un- 
certain interpretation,  easily  besetting,  closely  clinging  to  (E.  R.  on 
the  margin  : admired  by  many),  12  : 1.  Kpirixos,  quick  to  discern,  4 : 12. 
t/  peWovaa  oiKovpfvrj.  the  future  world,  2 : 5.  peaireveiv,  to  interpose 
one’s  self,  to  mediate,  6 : 17.  peTpionaZclv,  to  have  compassion  on,  to 
bear  gently  with,  5 : 2 (said  of  Christ).  opKapoala,  oath,  7 : 20,  21,  28. 
irapamicpcilveiv , to  provoke,  3 : 16.  napaniKpaapos , provocation,  3 : 8,  15. 
nuXvpepcos,  by  divers  portions,  1 : 1.  noXvTponos , in  divers  manners,  1:1. 
npodpopos , forerunner,  6 : 20  (of  Christ).  awempapTvpfiv,  to  bear  witness 
with,  2 : 4.  rpayi/X ifciv,  to  open,  4 : 13  (TfrpayfjXioyxeW,  laid  open). 
viroaracris,  substance  (or  person),  1:3  (of  God)  ; confidence,  3 : 14  ; 
assurance,  11 : 1.  This  word,  however,  occurs  also  in  2 Cor.  11 : 17,  in 
the  sense  of  confidence.  xaPaKTW>  express  image  (Christ,  the  very  image 
of  the  essence  of  God),  1 : 3. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Ep.  to  the  Hebrews  has  a number  of  rare 
words  in  common  with  Paul  which  are  not  elsewhere  found  in  the  New 
Testament  or  the  Septuagint,  as  albas  (12  : 13 ; 1 Tim.  2 : 9),  dvadeape a 
(13  : 7 ; Acts  17 : 23),  duvnoraKTos  (2:8;  1 Tim.  1:9;  Tit.  1 : 6,  10),  dnel- 
0*ui  (4  : 6,  11 ; Rom.  11 : 30,  32  ; Eph.  2:2;  Col.  3 : 5),  dndXavais  (11 : 25 ; 
1 Tim.  6 : 17),  d(f)tXupyvpos  (13 : 5 ; 1 Tim.  3 : 3),  evbucos  (2:1;  Rom.  3 : 8), 
tvfpyrjs  (4 : 12  ; 1 Cor.  16:9;  Philem.  6),  f<fidna£  (7:27;  10:10;  Rom. 
6:10;  1 Cor.  15:6),  KoapiKos  (9:11;  Tit.  2:12),  piprjr^s  (6:12;  1 Cor. 
4:16,  etc.),  vucpda  (11:12;  Rom.  4:19;  Col.  3:5),  dptynpai  (11:16;  1 
Tim.  3:1;  6 : 10),  napaKor]  (2:2;  Rom.  5:10;  2 Cor.  10 : 6),  nXrjpixfiopla 
(6  : 11 ; 10 : 22 ; Col.  2 : 2 ; 1 Thess.  1:5),  (13 : 2 ; Rom.  12  : 13). 

On  the  linguistic  peculiarities  of  Hebrews,  see  Bleek,  I.  315-338 ; 
Liinemann,  Com.,  pp.  12  and  24  sqq.  (4th  ed.,  1878) ; Davidson,  Introd., 
I.  209  sqq.  (revised  ed.,  1882) ; and  the  Speaker’s  Com.  N.  T.f  IV.  7-16. 


§ 101.  THE  APOC  ALT  PSE. 


825 


§ 101.  The  Apocalypse . 

On  the  lit.  and  life  of  John,  see  $ 40  and  41  (pp.  406  sqq. ) ; on  the 
authorship  of  the  Apoc.  and  the  time  of  composition,  g 37  (pp.  385- 
390)  ; g 41  (pp.  416-422)  ; and  § 84  (pp.  716  sq.). 

1.  Modern  Critical  works  of  German  and  French  scholars  on  the 

Apocalypse:  Lucre  ( Voltstdndige  Einleitung , etc.,  2d  ed.,  1852; 
1,074  pages  of  introductory  matter,  critical  and  historical ; compare 
with  it  the  review  of  Bleek  in  the  “ Studienand  Kritiken  ” for  1854 
and  1855)  ; DeWette  (Com.,  1848,  with  a remarkable  preface,  3d 
ed.  by  Moeller,  1862)  ; Bleek  (Posthumous  Lectures,  ed.  by  Hoss- 
bach,  1862)  ; Ewald  ( Die  Johann.  Schriften , vol.  II.,  1862  ; besides 
his  older  Latin  Com.,  1828) ; Dusterdieck  (in  Meyer’s  Com.,  3d  ed., 
1877) ; Kenan  (V  Antechrist,  1873)  ; Reuss  (1878).  A.  Sabatier,  in 
Liclitenberger’s  “ Encyclopedic, ” I.  396-407.  E.  Vischer  : Die 
Offenb.  Joh.  eine  Jud.  Apok.  in  christl.  Bearbeitung , Leipz.,  1886. 
F.  Spitta  : Die  Offenb.  Joh.  untersucht,  Halle,  1889. 

2.  For  doctrinal  and  practical  exposition,  the  Commentaries  of  Heng- 

stenberg  (1849,  spoiled  by  false  prophecies  and  arbitrary  fancies)  ; 
Auberlen  (on  Daniel  and  Revelation,  2d  ed.,  1854)  ; Gaussen  ( Daniel 
leprophete,  1850) ; Ebrard  (in  Olshausen’s  Com.,  1853)  ; Luthardt 
(1861) ; J.  C.  K.  Hofmann  (1844  and  1862)  ; J.  L.  Fuller  (follows 
Hofmann,  1874) ; Lange  (1871,  Am.  ed.  enlarged  by  Craven,  1874) ; 
Gebhardt  ( Lehrbegriff  der  Apok.,  1873) ; Kliefoth  (1874).  Comp, 
also  Rougemont  : La  Revelation  de  St.  Jean  expliquant  Vhistoire  (1866). 
Godet  : Essay  upon  the  Apoc.,  in  his  Studies  on  the  N.  T.,  translated 
from  the  French  by  W.  H.  Lyttleton,  London,  1876,  294-398. 

3.  English  Com. : E.  H.  Elliott  (d.  1875,  Horce  Apoc.,  5th  ed.,  1862,  4 

vols.) ; Wordsworth  (4th  ed.,  1866)  ; Alford  (3d  ed.,  1866) ; C.  J. 
Vaughan  (3d  ed.,  1870,  practical) ; William  Lee  (Archdeacon  in 
Dublin,  in  the  “ Speaker’s  ” Com.  AT.  T.,  vol.  iv.,  1881,  pp.  405-844) ; 
E.  Huntingford  (Lond.,  1882) ; Milligan  (1883  and  1886  the  best). — 
Trench  : The  Epistles  to  the  Seven  Churches  (2d  ed.,  1861),  and  Plump- 
tre  : Expos,  of  the  Epp.  to  the  Seven  Ch.  (Lond.  and  N.  Y.,1877). 

4.  American  Com.  by  Moses  Stuart  (1845,  2 vols.,  new  ed.,  1864,  with 

an  Excursus  on  the  Number  of  the  Beast,  II.  452);  Cowles 
(1871). 

5.  Of  older  Commentaries,  the  most  important  and  valuable  are  the 

following : 

(a)  Greek : Andreas  of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia  (5th  cent. ; the  first  con- 
tinuous Com.  on  the  Apoc.,  publ.  1596,  also  in  the  works  of  Chry- 
sostom ; see  Liicke,  p.  983) ; Arethas  of  Caes.  in  Cappad.  (not  of 
the  6th  cent.,  as  stated  by  Liicke,  p.  990,  and  others,  but  of  the 
10th,  according  to  Otto,  and  Harnack,  in  Altchristl.  Liter.,  1882,  pp. 


826 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


36  sqq. ; his  a-vvo\f/ts  trxoXii cfj,  ed.  by  J.  A.  Cramer,  in  his  Catenae 
Grcec.  Pair,  in  N.  T.,  Oxon.,  1840,  vol.  VIII. ; and  in  the  works  ol 
Oecumenius)  ; Oecumenius  (10th  cent.,  see  Liicke,  p.  991). 

(b)  Rom.  Cath. : Lud.  ab  Alcasar  (a  Jesuit,  1614) ; Cornelius  a Lapede 

(1662) ; Bossuet  (1690,  and  in  Oeuvres , vol.  III.,  1819) ; Bisping 
(1876). 

(c)  Protestant:  Jos.  Mede  ( Claris  Apocalyptica , Cambr.,  1632;  Engl, 
transl.  by  More,  1643 ; a new  transl.  by  R.  B.  Cooper,  Lond.,  1833) ; 
Hugo  Grotius  (first,  1644)  ; Vitringa  (1705,  1719,  1721) ; Bengel 
(1740) ; Bishop  Thomas  Newton  (in  Dissertations  on  the  Prophecies , 
3 vols.,  1758). 

This  list  is  a small  selection.  The  literature  on  the  Apocalypse,  espe- 
cially in  English,  is  immense,  but  mostly  impository  rather  than  ex- 
pository, and  hence  worthless  or  even  mischievous,  because  confound- 
ing and  misleading.  Darling’s  list  of  English  works  on  the  Apocalypse 
contains  nearly  fifty-four  columns  (I.,  1732-1786). 

General  Character  of  the  Apocalypse. 

“The  Revelation”  of  John,  or  rather  “of  Jesus  Christ” 
through  John,1 *  appropriately  closes  the  New  Testament.  It  is 
the  one  and  only  prophetic  book,  but  based  upon  the  discourses 
of  our  Lord  on  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  end  of  the 
world,  and  his  second  advent  (Matt.  ch.  24).  It  has  one  face 
turned  back  to  the  prophecies  of  old,  the  other  gazing  into  the 
future.  It  combines  the  beginning  and  the  end  in  Him  who  is 
“ the  Alpha  and  the  Omega.”  It  reminds  one  of  the  mysterious 
sphinx  keeping  ceaseless  watch,  with  staring  eyes,  at  the  base 
of  the  Great  Pyramid.  “ As  many  words  as  many  mysteries,” 
says  Jerome;  “Nobody  knows  what  is  in  it,”  adds  Luther.9 
No  book  has  been  more  misunderstood  and  abused ; none  calls 
for  greater  modesty  and  reserve  in  interpretation.3 * * * * 

1 *Ax 0Kd\tAj/is  ’lijo-ov  Xpurrov,  1:1.  The  oldest  inscription  in  Cod.  is 
airoKaXvipis  uaavov . Later  MSS.  add  rov  aylov  and  rov  SeoA6you,  etc. 

s “ Tot  verba,  tot  mysteria .” — “ Niemand  weiss , was  darinnen  stelit Zwin. 
gli  would  take  no  doctrinal  proof -text  from  Revelation. 

3 The  amount  of  nonsense,  false  chronology,  and  prophecy  which  has  been 

put  into  the  Apocalypse  is  amazing,  and  explains  the  sarcastic  saying  of  the 

Calvinistic,  yet  vehemently  anti- Puritanic  preacher,  Robert  South  ( Serm . 

XXIII.,  vol.  I.,  377,  Philad.  ed.,  1844),  that  “the  book  called  the  Revelation, 

the  more  it  is  studied,  the  less  it  is  understood,  as  generally  either  finding  a 


§ 101.  TIIE  APOCALYPSE. 


827 


The  opening  and  closing  chapters  are  as  clear  and  dazzling 
as  sunlight,  and  furnish  spiritual  nourishment  and  encourage- 
ment to  the  plainest  Christian ; but  the  intervening  visions  are, 
to  most  readers,  as  dark  as  midnight,  yet  with  many  stars  and 
the  full  moon  illuminating  the  darkness.  The  Epistles  to  the 
Seven  Churches,  the  description  of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem, 
and  the  anthems  and  doxologies 1 which  are  interspersed  through 
the  mysterious  visions,  and  glister  like  brilliant  jewels  on  a 
canopy  of  richest  black,  are  among  the  most  beautiful,  sub- 
lime, edifying,  and  inspiring  portions  of  the  Bible,  and  they 
ought  to  guard  us  against  a hasty  judgment  of  those  chapters 
which  we  may  be  unable  to  understand.  The  Old  Testament 
prophets  were  not  clearly  understood  until  the  fulfilment  cast 
its  light  upon  them,  and  yet  they  served  a most  useful  purpose 
as  books  of  warning,  comfort,  and  hope  for  the  coming  Messiah. 
The  Revelation  will  be  fully  revealed  when  the  new  heavens 
and  the  new  earth  appear — not  before.3 

“A  prophet”  (says  the  sceptical  DeWette  in  his  Commen- 
tary on  Revelation,  which  was  his  last  work)  “is  essentially 
an  inspired  man,  an  interpreter  of  God,  who  announces  the 
Word  of  God  to  men  in  accordance  with,  and  within  the  limits 
of,  the  divine  truth  already  revealed  through  Moses  in  the  Old 
Testament,  through  Christ  in  the  Rew  (the  a7roKa\vyfn<;  jjlvo-- 
TT]pLovt  Rom.  16  : 25.  Prophecy  rests  on  faith  in  a continuous 
providence  of  God  ruling  over  the  whole  world,  and  with  pecu- 
liar efficacy  over  Israel  and  the  congregation  of  Christ,  accord- 
ing to  the  moral  laws  revealed  through  Moses  and  Christ,  espe- 
cially the  laws  of  retribution.  According  to  the  secular  view, 

man  cracked,  or  making  him  so.”  The  remark  is  sometimes  falsely  attributed 
to  Calvin,  but  he  had  great  respect  for  the  book,  and  quotes  it  freely  for 
doctrinal  purposes,  though  he  modestly  or  wisely  abstained  from  writing  a 
commentary  on  it. 

1 Chs.  4 : 11 ; 5 : 8-14;  7 : 12-17;  11  : 15;  14  : 13;  15  : 3;  19  : 1,  2,  6,  7. 

2 Herder : 41  How  many  passages  in  the  prophets  are  obscure  in  their  pri- 
mary historical  references,  and  yet  these  passages,  containing  divine  truth, 
doctrine,  and  consolation,  are  manna  for  all  hearts  and  all  ages.  Should  it 
not  be  so  with  the  book  which  is  an  abstract  of  almost  all  prophets  and 
apostles  ? 


828 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


all  changes  m human  affairs  proceed  partly  from  man’s  powei 
and  prudence,  partly  from  accident  and  the  hidden  stubbornness 
of  fate ; but  according  to  the  prophetic  view,  everything  happens 
through  the  agency  of  God  and  in  harmony  with  his  counsels 
of  eternal  and  unchangeable  justice,  and  man  is  the  maker  of 
his  own  fortunes  by  obeying  or  resisting  the  will  of  God.” 1 

The  prophecy  of  the  Bible  meets  the  natural  desire  to  know  the 
future,  and  this  desire  is  most  intense  in  great  critical  periods 
that  are  pregnant  with  fears  and  hopes.  But  it  widely  differs 
from  the  oracles  of  the  heathen,  and  the  conjectures  of  far- 
seeing  men.  It  rests  on  revelation,  not  on  human  sagacity  and 
guesses ; it  gives  certainty,  not  mere  probability ; it  is  general, 
not  specific;  it  does  not  gratify  curiosity,  but  is  intended  to 
edify  and  improve.  The  prophets  are  not  merely  revealers  of 
secrets,  but  also  preachers  of  repentance,  revivalists,  comforters, 
rebuking  sin,  strengthening  faith,  encouraging  hope. 

The  Apocalypse  is  in  the  New  Testament  what  the  Book  of 
Daniel  is  in  the  Old,  and  differs  from  it  as  the  New  Testament 
differs  from  the  Old.  Both  are  prophetic  utterances  of  the  will 
of  God  concerning  the  future  of  his  kingdom  on  earth.  Both 
are  books  of  the  church  militant,  and  engage  heaven  and 
earth,  divine,  human,  and  satanic  powers,  in  a conflict  for 
life  and  death.  They  march  on  as  “ a terrible  army  with  ban- 
ners.” They  reverberate  with  thunderings  and  reflect  the  light- 
ning flashes  from  the  throne.  But  while  Daniel  looks  to  the 
first  advent  of  the  Messiah  as  the  heir  of  the  preceding  world- 
monarchies,  John  looks  to  the  second  advent  of  Christ  and  the 
new  heavens  and  the  new  earth.  He  gathers  up  all  the  former 
prophecies  and  sends  them  enriched  to  the  future.  He  assures 
us  of  the  final  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  of  the  serpent-bruiser, 
which  was  given  to  our  first  parents  immediately  after  the  fall 
as  a guiding  star  of  hope  in  the  dark  night  of  sin.  He  blends 
the  glories  of  creation  and  redemption  in  the  finale  of  the  new 
Jerusalem  from  heaven. 


1 Zur  Einleit.  in  die  Offenb.  Joh p.  1.  The  translation  is  condensed. 


§ 101.  THE  APOCALYPSE. 


829 


The  Apocalypse,  as  to  its  style  of  composition,  is  written  in 
prose,  like  Daniel,  but  belongs  to  prophetic  poetry,  which  is 
peculiar  to  the  Bible  and  takes  there  the  place  of  the  epic 
poetry  of  the  Greeks ; God  himself  being  the  hero,  as  it  were, 
who  rules  over  the  destinies  of  man.  It  is  an  inspired  work  of 
art,  and  requires  for  its  understanding  a poetic  imagination, 
which  is  seldom  found  among  commentators  and  critics ; but 
the  imagination  must  be  under  the  restraint  of  sober  judgment, 
or  it  is  apt  to  run  into  fantastic  comments  which  themselves 
need  a commentary.  The  apocalyptic  vision  is  the  last  and 
most  complete  form  of  the  prophetic  poetry  of  the  Bible.  The 
strong  resemblance  between  the  Revelation  and  Daniel,  Ezekiel 
and  Zechariah  is  admitted,  and  without  them  it  cannot  be 
understood. 

But  we  may  compare  it  also,  as  to  its  poetic  form  and  arrange- 
ment,  with  the  book  of  Job.  Both  present  a conflict  on  earth, 
controlled  by  invisible  powers  in  heaven.  In  Job  it  is  the 
struggle  of  an  individual  servant  of  God  with  Satan,  the  arch- 
slanderer and  persecutor  of  man,  who,  with  the  permission  of 
God,  uses  temporal  losses,  bodily  sufferings,  mental  anguish, 
harassing  doubt,  domestic  affliction,  false  and  unfeeling  friends 
to  secure  his  ruin.  In  the  Apocalypse  it  is  the  conflict  of 
Christ  and  his  church  with  the  anti-Christian  world.  In  both 
the  scene  begins  in  heaven ; in  both  the  war  ends  in  victory  ; 
but  in  Job  long  life  and  temporal  prosperity  of  the  individual 
sufferer  is  the  price,  in  the  Apocalypse  redeemed  humanity  in 
the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth.  Both  are  arranged  in 
three  parts : a prologue,  the  battle  with  successive  encounters, 
and  an  epilogue.  In  both  the  invisible  power  presiding  over 
the  action  is  the  divine  counsel  of  wisdom  and  mercy,  in  the 
place  of  the  dark  impersonal  fate  of  the  Greek  drama.1 

1 Prof.  Godet  compares  the  Apocalypse  with  the  Song  of  Songs,  viewed  as 
a dramatic  poem,  and  calls  it  “the  Canticle  of  the  New  Testament,”  as  the 
Song  of  Songs  is  “the  Apocalypse  of  the  Old.”  But  I cannot  see  the  aptness 
of  this  comparison.  Eichhorn  treated  the  Apocalypse  as  a regular  drama  with 
a prologue,  three  acts,  and  an  epilogue. 


830 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


A comparison  between  the  Apocalypse  and  the  pseudo-apoca- 
lyptic Jewish  and  Christian  literature — the  Fourth  Book  of 
Esdras,  the  Book  of  Enoch,  the  Testaments  of  the  Twelve 
Patriarchs,  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch,  the  Sibylline  Oracles, 
etc. — opens  a wide  field  on  which  we  cannot  enter  without  pass- 
ing far  beyond  the  limits  of  this  work.  We  may  only  say  that 
the  relation  is  the  same  as  that  between  the  canonical  Gospels 
and  the  apocryphal  pseudo-Gospels,  between  real  history  and 
the  dreamland  of  fable,  between  the  truth  of  God  and  the  fic- 
tion of  man.1 

The  theme  of  the  Apocalypse  is  : “I  come  quickly,”  and  the 
proper  attitude  of  the  church  toward  it  is  the  holy  longing  of 
a bride  for  her  spouse,  as  expressed  in  the  response  (22  : 20) : 
“Amen:  come,  Lord  Jesus.”  It  gives  us  the  assurance  that 
Christ  is  coming  in  every  great  event,  and  rules  and  overrules 
all  things  for  the  ultimate  triumph  of  his  kingdom ; that  the 
state  of  the  church  on  earth  is  one  of  continual  conflict  with 
hostile  powers,  but  that  she  is  continually  gaining  victories  and 
will  at  last  completely  and  finally  triumph  over  all  her  foes  and 
enjoy  unspeakable  bliss  in  communion  with  her  Lord.  From 
the  concluding  chapters  Christian  poetry  has  drawn  rich  inspira- 
tion, and  the  choicest  hymns  on  the  heavenly  home  of  the 
saints  are  echoes  of  John’s  description  of  the  new  Jerusalem. 
The  whole  atmosphere  of  the  book  is  bracing,  and  makes  one 
feel  fearless  and  hopeful  in  the  face  of  the  devil  and  the  beasts 
from  the  abyss.  The  Gospels  lay  the  foundation  in  faith,  the 
Acts  and  Epistles  build  upon  it  a holy  life ; the  Apocalypse  is 
the  book  of  hope  to  the  struggling  Christian  and  the  militant 
church,  and  insures  final  victory  and  rest.  This  has  been  its 
mission  ; this  will  be  its  mission  till  the  Lord  come  in  his  own 
good  time.’ 

1 See  Liicke,  pp.  66-345 ; Lange,  pp.  6 sqq. ; Hilgenfeld,  Diejudisclie  Apo- 
kalyptik  ( 1857);  Schiirer,  AT.  Vliche  Zeityeschichte  (1874),  pp.  511-563. 

8 Godet  (p.  297)  : “ The  Apocalypse  is  the  precious  vessel  in  which  the  treas- 
ure of  Christian  hope  has  been  deposited  for  all  ages  of  the  church,  but  es- 
pecially for  the  church  under  the  cross.”  Dr.  Chambers  (p.  15) : tk  The  scope 
of  this  mysterious  book  is  not  to  convince  unbelievers,  nor  to  illustrate  the 


§ 101.  THE  APOCALYPSE. 


831 


Analysis  of  Contents. 

The  Apocalypse  consists  of  a Prologue,  the  Revelation  proper, 
and  an  Epilogue.  We  may  compare  this  arrangement  to  that 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  where  cli.  1 : 1-18  forms  the  Prologue, 
eh.  21  the  Epilogue,  and  the  intervening  chapters  contain  the 
evangelical  history  from  the  gathering  of  the  disciples  to  the 
Resurrection. 

I.  The  Prologue  and  the  Epistles  to  the  Seven  Churches, 
chs.  1-3.  The  introductory  notice ; John’s  salutation  and  dedi- 
cation to  the  Seven  Churches  in  Asia ; the  vision  of  Christ  in 
his  glory,  and  the  Seven  Churches;  the  Seven  Epistles  ad- 
dressed to  them  and  through  them  to  the  whole  church,  in  its 
various  states.1 

II.  The  Revelation  proper  or  the  Prophetic  Vision  of  the 
Church  of  the  Future,  4 : 1 to  22 : 5.  It  consists  chiefly  of 
seven  Visions,  which  are  again  subdivided  according  to  a sym- 
metrical plan  in  which  the  numbers  seven,  three,  four,  and 
twelve  are  used  with  symbolic  significance.  There  are  inter- 
vening scenes  of  rest  and  triumph.  Sometimes  the  vision  goes 
back  to  the  beginning  and  takes  a new  departure. 

(1)  The  Prelude  in  heaven,  chs.  4 and  5.  (a)  The  appear 

ance  of  the  throne  of  God  (ch.  4).  ( b ) The  appearance  of  the 

Lamb  who  takes  and  opens  the  sealed  book  (ch.  5). 

(2)  The  vision  of  the  seven  seals,  with  two  episodes  between 
the  sixth  and  seventh  seals,  6 : 1 to  8 : 1. 

(3)  The  vision  of  the  seven  trumpets  of  vengeance,  8 : 2 to 
11:19. 

(4)  The  vision  of  the  woman  (the  church)  and  her  three  ene- 

divine  prescience,  nor  to  minister  to  men’s  prurient  desire  to  peer  into  the 
future,  but  to  edify  the  disciples  of  Christ  in  every  age  by  unfolding  the 
nature  and  character  of  earth’s  conflicts,  by  preparing  them  for  trial  as  not 
a strange  thing,  by  consoling  them  with  the  prospect  of  victory,  by  assuring 
them  of  God’s  sovereign  control  over  all  persons  and  things,  and  by  pointing 
them  to  the  ultimate  issue  when  they  shall  pass  through  the  gates  of  pearl 
never  more  to  go  out.” 

> Comp.  § 50,  pp.  450-454. 


832 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


mies,  12  : 1 to  13:18.  The  three  enemies  are  the  dragon 
(12  : 3-17),  the  beast  from  the  sea  (12  : 18  to  13  : 10),  and  the 
beast  from  the  earth,  or  the  false  prophet  (13  : 11-18). 

(5)  The  group  of  visions  in  ch.  14:  (a)  the  vision  of  the 
Lamb  on  Mount  Zion  (vers.  1-5);  (b)  of  the  three  angels  of 
judgment  (vers.  6-11),  followed  by  an  episode  (12,  13) ; (c)  the 
vision  of  the  harvest  and  the  vintage  of  the  earth  (vers.  14-20). 

(6)  The  vision  of  the  seven  vials  of  wrath,  15  : 1 to  16  : 21. 

(7)  The  vision  of  the  final  triumph,  17  : 1 to  22  : 5 : (a)  the 
fall  of  Babylon  (17  : 1 to  19  : 10) ; ( b ) the  overthrow  of  Satan 
(19  : 11  to  20  : 10),  with  the  millennial  reign  intervening  (20  : 1- 
6) ; (c)  the  universal  judgment  (20  : 11-15) ; ( d ) the  new  hea^ 
vens  and  the  new  earth,  and  the  glories  of  the  heavenly  Jerusa 
lem  (21 : 1 to  22  : 5). 

III.  The  Epilogue,  22  : 6-21.  The  divine  attestation,  threats, 
and  promises. 


Authorship  and  Canonicity. 

The  question  of  authorship  has  already  been  discussed  in  con 
nection  with  John’s  Gospel.  The  Apocalypse  professes  to  be 
the  work  of  John,  who  assumes  a commanding  position  over  the 
churches  of  Asia.  History  knows  only  one  such  character,  the 
Apostle  and  Evangelist,  and  to  him  it  is  ascribed  by  the  earliest 
and  most  trustworthy  witnesses,  going  back  to  the  lifetime  of 
many  friends  and  pupils  of  the  author.  It  is  one  of  the  best 
authenticated  books  of  the  Hew  Testiment.1 

And  yet,  owing  to  its  enigmatical  obscurity,  it  is  the  most 
disputed  of  the  seven  Antilegomena  • and  this  internal  diffh 
culty  has  suggested  the  hypothesis  of  the  authorship  of  “ Pres- 
byter  John,”  whose  very  existence  is  doubtful  (being  based  on 
a somewhat  obscure  passage  of  Papias),  and  who  at  all  events 
could  not  occupy  a rival  position  of  superintendency  over 
the  churches  in  Asia  during  the  lifetime  of  the  great  John. 
The  Apocalypse  was  a stumbling-block  to  the  spiritualism  of 

1 See  the  testimoniea  in  Charteris,  Canonicity , pp.  336-357 ; also  Liicke  t'pp. 
419-887),  Alford  (iv.  198-229),  Lee  (pp.  405-442),  and  other  commentators. 


§ 101.  THE  APOCALYPSE. 


833 


tlie  Alexandrian  fathers,  and  to  the  realism  of  the  Reformers 
(at  least  Luther  and  Zwingli),  and  to  not  a few  of  eminent 
modern  divines ; and  jet  it  has  attracted  again  and  again  the 
most  intense  curiosity  and  engaged  the  most  patient  study  of 
devout  scholars ; while  humble  Christians  of  every  age  are 
cheered  by  its  heroic  tone  and  magnificent  close  in  their  pilgrim- 
age to  the  heavenly  Jerusalem.  Rejected  by  many  as  un- 
apostolic  and  uncanonical,  and  assigned  to  a mythical  Presbyter 
John,  it  is  now  recognized  by  the  severest  school  of  critics  as 
an  undoubted  production  of  the  historical  Apostle  John.1 

If  so,  it  challenges  for  this  reason  alone  our  profound  rever- 
ence. For  who  was  better  fitted  to  be  the  historian  of  the  past 
and  the  seer  of  the  future  than  the  bosom  friend  of  our  Lord 
and  Saviour?  Able  scholars,  rationalistic  as  well  as  ortho- 
dox, have  by  thorough  and  patient  investigation  discovered 
or  fully  confirmed  its  poetic  beauty  and  grandeur,  the  consum- 
mate art  in  its  plan  and  execution.  They  have  indeed  not 
been  able  to  clear  up  all  the  mysteries  of  this  book,  but  have 
strengthened  rather  than  weakened  its  claim  to  the  position 
which  it  has  ever  occupied  in  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament. 

It  is  true,  the  sceptical  critics  who  so  confidently  vindicate 
the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Apocalypse,  derive  from  this  very 
fact  their  strongest  weapon  against  the  apostolic  origin  of  the 
fourth  Gospel.  But  the  differences  of  language  and  spirit  which 
have  been  urged  are  by  no  means  irreconcilable,  and  are  over- 
ruled by  stronger  resemblances  in  the  theology  and  christology 
and  even  in  the  style  of  the  two  books.  A proper  estimate  of 
John’s  character  enables  us  to  see  that  he  was  not  only  able, 
but  eminently  fitted  to  write  both ; especially  if  we  take  into 
consideration  the  intervening  distance  of  twenty  or  thirty  years, 
the  difference  of  the  subject  (prospective  prophecy  in  one,  and 
retrospective  history  in  the  other),  and  the  difference  of  the 
6tate-of  mind,  now  borne  along  in  ecstacy  (iv  irveitfiaTL)  from 
vision  to  vision  and  recording  what  the  Spirit  dictated,  now 

1 This  is  the  almost  unanimous  opinion  of  the  Tubingen  critics  and  their 
sympathizers  on  the  Continent  and  in  England. 


834 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


calmly  collecting  his  reminiscences  in  full,  clear  self-conscious 
ness  (eV  vot).1 


The  Time  of  Composition. 

The  traditional  date  of  composition  at  the  end  of  Domitian’s 
reign  (95  or  96)  rests  on  the  clear  and  weighty  testimony  of 
Irenseus,  is  confirmed  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  and  has  still  its 
learned  defenders,2  but  the  internal  evidence  strongly  favors  an 
earlier  date  between  the  death  of  Nero  (June  9,  68)  and  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  (August  10,  70). 3 This  helps  us  at  the 
same  time  more  easily  to  explain  the  difference  between  the 
fiery  energy  of  the  Apocalypse  and  the  calm  repose  of  the  fourth 
Gospel,  which  was  composed  in  extreme  old  age.  The  Apoca- 
lypse forms  the  natural  transition  from  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
to  the  fourth  Gospel.  The  condition  of  the  Seven  Churches  was 
indeed  different  from  that  which  existed  a few  years  before 
when  Paul  wrote  to  the  Ephesians  ; but  the  movement  in  the 
apostolic  age  was  very  rapid.  Six  or  seven  years  intervened  to 
account  for  the  changes.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  implies 
a similar  spiritual  decline  among  its  readers  in  63  or  64.  Great 
revivals  of  religion  are  very  apt  to  be  quickly  followed  by  a re- 
action of  worldliness  or  indifference. 

1 Comp.  Rev.  1 : 10  ; 1 Cor.  14 : 15.  See,  besides  the  references  mentioned 
at  the  head  of  the  section,  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Weiss,  who,  in  his  Leben 
Jesu  (1882),  I.  97-101,  ably  discusses  the  differences  between  the  two  books, 
and  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  they  are  both  from  the  same  Apostle  John. 
“ Yes  ” (he  says,  with  reference  to  a significant  concession  of  Dr.  Baur),  **  the 
fourth  Gospel  is  ‘ the  spiritualized  Apocalypse,’  but  not  because  an  intellec- 
tual hero  of  the  second  century  followed  the  seer  of  the  Apocalypse,  but  be- 
cause the  Son  of  Thunder  of  the  Apocalypse  had  been  matured  and  trans- 
figured by  the  Spirit  and  the  divine  guidance  into  a mystic,  and  the  flames  of 
his  youth  had  burnt  down  into  the  gh'w  of  a holy  love.” 

4 The  great  majority  of  older  commentators,  and  among  the  recent  ones 
Elliott,  Alford,  Hengstenberg,  Ebrard,  Lange,  Hofmann,  Godet,  Lee,  Milligan, 
and  Warfield  (in  Schaff’s  “ Encycl.”  III.  2035).  I myself  formerly  advocated 
the  later  date,  in  the  Hist,  of  the  Ap.  Church  (1853),  pp.  418  sqq. 

* The  early  date  is  advocated  or  accepted  by  Neander,  Liicke,  Bleek,  Ewald, 
DeWette,  Baur,  Hilgenfeld,  Reuss,  Dusterdieck,  Renan,  Aub6,  Stuart,  David- 
son, Cowles,  Bishop  Lightfoot,  Westcott,  Holtzmann,  Weiss  ; and  among  earlier 
writers  by  Alcasar,  Grotius,  Hammond,  Abauzit,  and  John  Lightfoot. 


§ 101.  THE  APOCALYPSE. 


835 


The  arguments  for  the  early  date  are  the  following: 

1.  Jerusalem  was  still  standing,  and  the  seer  was  directed  to 
measure  the  Temple  and  the  altar  (11 : 1),  but  the  destruction  is 
predicted  as  approaching.  The  Gentiles  “ shall  tread  ( iraT^aou - 
(tlv)  the  holy  city  under  foot  forty  and  two  months  ” (11 : 2 ; 
comp.  Luke  21 : 24),  and  the  “ dead  bodies  shall  lie  in  the  street 
of  the  great  city,  which  spiritually  is  called  Sodom  and  Egypt, 
where  also  their  Lord  was  crucified  ” (ver.  8).  The  existence 
of  the  twelve  tribes  seems  also  to  be  assumed  in  ch.  7 : 4-8. 
The  advocates  of  the  traditional  date  understand  these  passages 
in  a figurative  sense.  But  the  allusion  to  the  crucifixion  com- 
pels us  to  think  of  the  historical  Jerusalem. 

2.  The  book  was  written  not  long  after  the  death  of  the  fifth 
Roman  emperor,  that  is,  Nero,  when  the  empire  had  received 
a deadly  wound  (comp.  13  : 3,  12,  14).  This  is  the  natural 
interpretation  of  ch.  17  : 10,  where  it  is  stated  that  the  seven 
heads  of  the  scarlet-colored  beast,  i.e .,  heathen  Rome,  “ are 
seven  kings ; the  five  are  fallen,  the  one  is,  the  other  is  not  yet 
come,  and  when  he  cometh,  he  must  continue  a little  while.” 
The  first  five  emperors  were  Augustus,  Tiberius,  Caligula,  Clau- 
dius, and  Nero,  with  whom  the  gens  Julia  ingloriously  perished. 
Next  came  Galba,  a mere  usurper  (seventy-three  years  old),  who 
ruled  but  a short  time,  from  June,  68,  to  January,  69,  and  ^vas 
followed  by  two  other  usurpers,  Otlio  and  Yitellius,  till  Vespa- 
sian, in  70,  restored  the  empire  after  an  interregnum  of  two 
years,  and  left  the  completion  of  the  conquest  of  the  Jews  and 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  to  his  son  Titus.1  Vespasian  may 
therefore  be  regarded  as  the  sixth  head,  the  three  rebels  not 
being  counted;  and  thus  the  composition  of  the  Apocalypse 
would  fall  in  the  spring  (perhaps  Easter)  of  the  year  70.  This 
is  confirmed  by  13 : 3,  12,  14,  where  the  deadly  wound  of  the 
beast  is  represented  as  being  already  healed.2  But  if  the  usurpers 

‘Suetonius,  Vespa s.  c.  1:  “ Rebellion  e trium  principum  et  caede  incertum 
diu  et  quasi  vagum  imperium  suscepit  Jirmavitque  tandem  gens  Flavin. 

* So  Bleek  (p.  121),  Liicke  (in  the  second  ed.),  Bohmer,  Weiss,  Diis  erdieck 
(Introd.  pp.  55  sqq.  and  Com.  on  13  : 3,  and  17  : 7-14). 


836 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


are  counted,  Galba  is  tlie  sixth  head,  and  the  Revelation  was 
written  in  68.  In  either  case  Julius  Csesar  must  be  excluded 
from  the  series  of  emperors  (contrary  to  Josephus). 

Several  critics  refer  the  seventh  head  to  Nero,  and  ascribe  to 
the  seer  the  silly  expectation  of  the  return  of  Nero  as  Anti- 
christ.1 In  this  way  they  understand  the  passage  17:11:  “ The 
beast  that  was,  and  is  not,  is  himself  also  an  eighth  and  is 
of  the  seven.”  But  John  makes  a clear  distinction  between 
the  heads  of  the  beast,  of  whom  Nero  was  one,  and  the  beast 
itself,  which  is  the  Roman  empire.  I consider  it  simply  impos- 
sible that  John  could  have  shared  in  the  heathen  delusion  of 
Nero  redivivus,  which  would  deprive  him  of  all  credit  as  an  in- 
spired prophet.  He  may  have  regarded  Nero  as  a fit  type  and 
forerunner  of  Antichrist,  but  only  in  the  figurative  sense  in 
which  Babylon  of  old  was  the  type  of  heathen  Rome. 

3.  The  early  date  is  best  suited  for  the  nature  and  object  of 
the  Apocalypse,  and  facilitates  its  historical  understanding. 
Christ  pointed  in  his  eschatological  discourses  to  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  and  the  preceding  tribulation  as  the  great  crisis 
in  the  history  of  the  theocracy  and  the  type  of  the  judgment 
of  the  wTorld.  And  there  never  was  a more  alarming  state  of 
society.  The  horrors  of  the  French  Revolution  were  confined 
to  one  country,  but  the  tribulation  of  the  six  years  preceding 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  extended  over  the  whole  Roman 
empire  and  embraced  wars  and  rebellions,  frequent  and  unusual 
conflagrations,  earthquakes  and  famines  and  plagues,  and  all 
sorts  of  public  calamities  and  miseries  untold.  It  seemed,  indeed, 
that  the  world,  shaken  to  its  very  centre,  was  coming  to  a close, 
and  every  Christian  must  have  felt  that  the  prophecies  of 
Christ  were  being  fulfilled  before  his  eyes.3 

It  was  at  this  unique  juncture  in  the  history  of  mankind  that 

1 So  Ewald,  Reuss,  Baur,  etc.  See  below,  p.  846. 

2 Comp.  ch.  vi.,  pp.  376-402,  and  especially  the  most  graphic  description  of 
those  terrible  years  by  Renan,  in  D Antechrist,  ch.  xiv. , pp.  320-339,  which  I 
would  like  to  transcribe  if  space  permitted.  His  facts  are  well  supported  by 
heathen  and  Jewish  testimonies,  especially  Tacitus,  Suetonius,  Strabo,  Pliny, 
Josephus,  etc. 


§ 101.  TIIE  APOCALYPSE. 


837 


St.  John,  with  the  consuming  fire  in  Home  and  the  infernal  spec- 
tacle of  the  Heronian  persecution  behind  him,  the  terrors  of  the 
Jewish  war  and  the  Roman  interregnum  around  him,  and  the 
catastrophe  of  Jerusalem  and  the  Jewish  theocracy  before  him, 
received  those  wonderful  visions  of  the  impending  conflicts  and 
final  triumphs  of  the  Christian  church.  His  was  truly  a book  of 
the  times  and  for  the  times,  and  administered  to  the  persecuted 
brethren  the  one  but  allsufficient  consolation : Maran  atha ! 
Maran  atha  ! 


Interpretation. 

The  different  interpretations  are  reduced  by  English  writers 
to  three  systems  according  as  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  is 
found  in  the  past,  present,  or  future.1 

1.  The  Preterist  system  applies  the  Revelation  to  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  and  heathen  Rome.  So  among  Roman 
Catholics : Alcasar  (1614),  Bossuet  (1690).  Among  Protes- 
tants : Hugo  Grotius  (1644),  Hammond  (1653),  Clericus  (1698), 
Wetstein  (1752),  Abauzit,  Herder,  Eichhorn,  Ewald,  Liicke, 
Bleek,  DeWette,  Reuss,  Renan,  F.  D.  Maurice,  Samuel  David- 
son, Moses  Stuart,  Cowles,  Desprez,  etc.  Some  2 refer  it  chiefly 
to  the  overthrow  of  the  Jewish  theocracy,  others  chiefly  to  the 
conflict  with  the  Roman  empire,  still  others  to  both. 

But  there  is  a radical  difference  between  those  Preterists  who 

1 See  Alford,  Com.  iv. , 245  sqq. ; Elliott,  4tb  vol. ; Sam.  Davidson,  Introd. 
to  the  N.  T7.,  first  ed.  III.  619,  revised  ed.,  vol.  II.  297,  and  Lee,  Com.  p.  488. 
Davidson  adds  a fourth  class  of  “extreme,”  as  distinguished  from  simple 
“ Futurists,”  who  refer  the  entire  book,  including  chs.  2 and  3,  to  the  last 
times.  Lee  substitutes  with  Liicke  the  term  “ Historical  ” for  “ Continuous,” 
but  Historical  applies  better  to  the  first  class  called  “Preterists.”  Lee  adds 
(491),  as  a fourth  system,  the  “Spiritual  system,”  and  names  Augustin  (his 
“City  of  God,”  as  the  first  philosophy  of  history),  J.  C.  K.  von  Hofmann, 
Hengstenberg,  Auberlen,  Ebrard  as  its  chief  defenders.  It  is  the  same  with 
what  Auberlen  calls  the  reichsgeschichtliche  Auslegung. 

2 So  Herder,  in  his  suggestive  book  MAP  AN  A®  A,  das  Buck  von  der  Zukunft 
des  Berm , des  N.  Testaments  Siegel , Riga,  1779.  He  was  preceded  in  the 
anti-Jewish  explication  by  Abauzit  of  Geneva  (1730),  who  assigned  the  book 
to  the  reign  of  Nero,  and  Wetstein  (1752),  and  followed  by  Hartwig  (1780)  and 
Zullig.  The  last,  in  a learned  work  on  the  Apocalypse  (Stuttgart,  1834, 
2 vols.,  1840),  refers  it  exclusively  to  the  Jewish  state. 


838 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


acknowledge  a real  prophecy  and  permanent  truth  in  the  book> 
and  the  rationalistic  Preterists  who  regard  it  as  a dream  of  a 
visionary  which  was  falsified  by  events,  inasmuch  as  Jerusalem, 
instead  of  becoming  the  habitation  of  saints,  remained  a heap  of 
ruins,  while  Rome,  after  the  overthrow  of  heathenism,  became 
the  metropolis  of  Latin  Christendom.  This  view  rests  on  a 
literal  misunderstanding  of  Jerusalem. 

2.  The  Continuous  (or  Historical)  system:  The  Apoca- 
lypse is  a prophetic  compend  of  church  history  and  covers  all 
Christian  centuries  to  the  final  consummation.  It  speaks  of 
things  past,  present,  and  future  ; some  of  its  prophecies  are  ful- 
filled, some  are  now  being  fulfilled,  and  others  await  fulfilment 
in  the  yet  unknown  future.  Here  belong  the  great  majority  of 
orthodox  Protestant  commentators  and  polemics  who  apply  the 
beast  and  the  mystic  Babylon  and  the  mother  of  harlots  drunken 
with  the  blood  of  saints  to  the  church  of  Rome,  either  exclusively 
or  chiefly.  But  they  differ  widely  among  themselves  in  chro- 
nology and  the  application  of  details.  Luther,  Bullinger,  Col- 
lado, Pareus,  Brightman,  Mede,  Robert  Fleming,  Whiston, 
Vitringa,  Bengel,  Isaac  Newton,  Bishop  Newton,  Faber,  Wood- 
house,  Elliott,  Birks,  Gaussen,  Auberlen,  Hengstenberg,  Alford, 
Wordsworth,  Lee. 

3.  The  Futurist  system:  The  events  of  the  Apocalypse 
from  ch.  4 to  the  close  lie  beyond  the  second  advent  of  Christ. 
This  scheme  usually  adopts  a literal  interpretation  of  Israel, 
the  Temple,  and  the  numbers  (the  3J  times,  42  months,  1260 
days,  3J  years).  So  Ribera  (a  Jesuit,  1592),  Lacunza  (another 
Jesuit,  who  wrote  under  the  name  of  Ben-Ezra  “ On  the  coming 
of  Messiah  in  glory  and  majesty,”  and  taught  the  premillennial 
advent,  the  literal  restoration  of  the  ancient  Zion,  and  the 
future  apostasy  of  the  clergy  of  the  Roman  church  to  the  camp 
of  Antichrist),  S.  R.  Maitland,  De  Burgh,  Todd,  Isaac  Wil- 
liams, W.  Kelly. 

Another  important  division  of  historical  interpreters  is  into 
Post-Millennarians  and  Pre-Millennarians,  according  as  the 
millennium  predicted  in  ch.  20  is  regarded  as  past  or  future. 


§ 101.  TIIE  APOCALYPSE, 


839 


Augustin  committed  the  radical  error  of  dating  the  millennium 
from  the  time  of  the  Apocalypse  or  the  beginning  of  the 
Christian  era  (although  the  seer  mentioned  it  near  the  end  of 
his  book),  and  his  view  had  great  influence;  hence  the  wide  ex- 
pectation of  the  end  of  the  world  at  the  close  of  the  first  mil- 
lennium of  the  Christian  church.  Other  post-millennarian 
interpreters  date  the  millennium  from  the  triumph  of  Chris- 
tianity over  paganism  in  Home  at  the  accession  of  Constantine 
the  Great  (311) ; still  others  (as  Hengstenberg)  from  the  conver- 
sion of  the  Germanic  nations  or  the  age  of  Charlemagne.  All 
these  calculations  are  refuted  by  events.  The  millennium  of 
the  Apocalypse  must  lie  in  the  future,  and  is  still  an  article  of 
hope. 

The  grammatical  and  historical  interpretation  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse, as  well  as  of  any  other  book,  is  the  only  safe  foundation 
for  all  legitimate  spiritual  and  practical  application.  Much  has 
been  done  in  this  direction  by  the  learned  commentators  of 
recent  times.  We  must  explain  it  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
author  and  in  view  of  his  surroundings.  He  wrote  out  of  his 
time  and  for  his  time  of  things  which  must  shortly  come  to 
pass  (1 : 1, 3 ; 22 : 20),  and  he  wished  to  be  read  and  understood 
by  his  contemporaries  (1  : 3).  Otherwise  he  would  have  written 
in  vain,  and  the  solemn  warning  at  the  close  (22  : 18,  19)  would 
be  unintelligible.  In  some  respects  they  could  understand  him 
better  than  we  ; for  they  were  fellow-sufferers  of  the  fiery  per- 
secutions and  witnesses  of  the  fearful  judgments  described. 
Undoubtedly  he  had  in  view  primarily  the  overthrow  of  Jeru- 
salem and  heathen  Home,  the  two  great  foes  of  Christianity  at 
that  time.  He  could  not  possibly  ignore  that  great  conflict. 

But  his  vision  was  not  confined  to  these  momentous  events. 
It  extends  even  to  the  remotest  future  when  death  and  Hades 
shall  be  no  more,  and  a new  heaven  and  a new  earth  shall  ap- 
pear. And  although  the  fulfilment  is  predicted  as  being  near 
at  hand,  he  puts  a millennium  and  a short  intervening  conflict 
before  the  final  overthrow  of  Satan,  the  beast,  and  the  false 
prophet.  We  have  an  analogy  in  the  prophecy  of  the  Old 


840 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Testament  and  the  eschatalogieal  discourses  of  our  Lord,  which 
furnish  the  key  for  the  understanding  of  the  Apocalypse.  He 
describes  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  general  judg- 
ment in  close  proximity,  as  if  they  were  one  continuous  event. 
He  sees  the  end  from  the  beginning.  The  first  catastrophe  is 
painted  with  colors  borrowed  from  the  last,  and  the  last  appears 
as  a repetition  of  the  first  on  a grand  and  universal  scale.  It 
is  the  manner  of  prophetic  vision  to  bring  distant  events  into 
close  proximity,  as  in  a panorama.  To  God  a thousand  years 
are  as  one  day.  Every  true  prophecy,  moreover,  admits  of  an 
expanding  fulfilment.  History  ever  repeats  itself,  though  never 
in  the  same  way.  There  is  nothing  old  under  the  sun,  and,  in 
another  sense,  there  is  nothing  new  under  the  sun. 

In  the  historical  interpretation  of  details  we  must  guard 
against  arbitrary  and  fanciful  schemes,  and  mathematical  calcu- 
lations, which  minister  to  idle  curiosity,  belittle  the  book,  and 
create  distrust  in  sober  minds.  The  Apocalypse  is  not  a pro- 
phetical manual  of  church  history  and  chronology  in  the  sense 
of  a prediction  of  particular  persons,  dates,  and  events.  This 
would  have  made  it  useless  to  the  first  readers,  and  wrould  make  it 
useless  now  to  the  great  mass  of  Christians.  It  gives  under  sym- 
bolic figures  and  for  popular  edification  an  outline  of  the  general 
principles  of  divine  government  and  the  leading  forces  in  the 
conflict  between  Christ’s  kingdom  and  his  foes,  which  is  still 
going  on  under  ever-varying  forms.  In  this  way  it  teaches, 
like  all  the  prophetic  utterances  of  the  Gospels  and  Epistles,  les- 
sons of  warning  and  encouragement  to  every  age.  We  must 
distinguish  between  the  spiritual  coming  of  Christ  and  his  per- 
sonal arrival  or  parousia . The  former  is  progressive,  the  lat- 
ter instantaneous.  The  coming  began  with  his  ascension  to 
heaven  (comp.  Matt.  26  : 64 : “ Henceforth  ye  shall  see  the  Son 
of  man  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  power,  and  coming  on  the 
clouds  of  heaven”),  and  goes  on  in  unbroken  succession  of 
judgments  and  blessings  (for  “the  history  of  the  world  is  a 
judgment  of  the  world  ”) ; hence  the  alternation  of  action  and 
repose,  of  scenes  of  terror  and  scenes  of  joy,  of  battles  and  vie- 


§ 101.  THE  APOCALYPSE. 


841 


tories.  The  arrival  of  the  Bridegroom  is  still  in  the  n’nlmown 
future,  and  may  be  accelerated  or  delayed  by  the  free  action  of 
the  church,  but  it  is  as  certain  as  the  first  advent  of  Christ 
The  hope  of  the  church  will  not  be  disappointed,  for  it  rests  on 
the  promise  of  Him  who  is  called  “the  Amen,  the  faithful  and 
true  witness  ” (3  : 14). 


Notes. 

The  Number  666. 

Tlie  historical  -understanding  of  the  Apocalypse  turns,  according  to 
its  own  statement,  chiefly  on  the  solution  of  the  numerical  riddle  in  the 
thirteenth  chapter,  which  has  tried  the  wits  of  commentators  from  the 
time  of  Irenmus  in  the  second  century  to  the  present  day,  and  is  still 
under  dispute.  The  history  of  its  solution  is  a history  of  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  whole  book.  Hence  I present  here  a summary  of  the  most 
important  views.  First  some  preliminary  remarks. 

1.  The  text , Apoc.  13  : 18  : “ Here  is  wisdom  : he  that  hath  under- 
standing, let  him  count  the  number  of  the  beast ; for  it  is  the  number 
of  a man  (dpfipus  y ap  av?spo)7rov  eVriV),  and  the  number  is  six  hundred 
and  sixty-six  ” (x£r  > or  egaicuo-iot  e^rjKovra  e£). 

This  is  the  correct  reading  in  the  Greek  text  (supported  by  Codd. 

A,  B (2),  P (2),  Origen,  Primasius,  and  Versions),  and  is  adopted  by  the 
best  editors.  Irenseus  ( Adv . Hcer.  v.  30,  quoted  also  in  full  by  Tischen- 
dorf  in  his  edition  VIII.  critica  major)  found  it  “ in  all  the  most  ap- 
proved and  ancient  copies  ” (eV  navi  Tois  amovbalois  Ka'i  dp^aiois  avnypa- 
c()OLi),  and  “ attested  by  those  who  had  themselves  seen  John  face  to 
face.”  There  was,  however,  in  his  day,  a very  remarkable  variation, 
sustained  by  Cod.  C,  and  “ some  ” copies,  known  to,  but  not  approved 
by,  Irenseus,  namely,  616  (^ir',  i.e.,  e^aKocrioi  biica  e£).  In  the  Anglo- 
American  revision  this  reading  is  noted  in  the  margin. 

2.  “The  number  of  a man  ” may  mean  either  the  number  of  an  indi- 
vidual, or  of  a corporate  person,  or  a human  number  ( Menschenzahl ),  i.e., 
a number  according  to  ordinary  human  reckoning  (so  Bleek,  who  com- 
pares perpov  av^pdonovy  “the  measure  of  a man,”  21 : 17,  and  Isa.  8 : 1).  _ 
Just  because  the  number  may  be  counted  in  the  customary  way,  the 
writer  could  expect  the  reader  to  find  it  out.  He  made  the  solution 
difficult  indeed,  but  not  impossible.  Dr.  Lee  (p.  687)  deems  it  not  in- 
consistent with  a proper  view  of  inspiration  that  John  himself  did  not 
know  the  meaning  of  the  number.  But  how  could  ho  then  ask  his  less 
knowing  readers  to  count  the  number  ? 

3.  The  mystic  use  of  numbers  (the  rabbinical  GhematHa , yecoperpla)  was 
familiar  to  the  Jews  in  Babylon,  and  passed  from  them  to  the  Greeks  in 


842 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Asia.  It  occurs  in  the  Cabbala,  in  the  Sibylline  Books  (I.  324-331),  in 
the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  and  was  very  common  also  among  the  Gnostio 
sects  ( eg .,  the  Abrasax  or  Abraxas,  which  signified  the  unbegotten 
Father,  and  the  three  hundred  and  sixty-five  heavens,  corresponding  to 
the  number  of  days  in  the  year).1  It  arose  from  the  employment  of  the 
letters  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  alphabets  for  the  designation  of  num- 
bers. The  Hebrew  Aleph  counts  1,  Beth  2,  etc.,  Yodh  10  ; but  Kaph  (the 
eleventh  letter)  counts  20,  Resli  (the  twentieth  letter)  200,  etc.  The 
Greek  letters,  with  the  addition  of  an  acute  accent  (as  a,  fi’),  have  the 
same  numerical  value  in  their  order  down  to  Sigma,  which  counts  200  ; 
except  that  r'  ( st ) is  used  for  6,  and  9'  (an  antiquated  letter  Koppa  be- 
tween 7 r and  />)  for  90.  The  Hebrew  alphabet  ends  with  Tav  = 400,  the 
Greek  with  Omega  = 800.  To  express  thousands  an  accent  is  put  be- 
neath the  letter,  as  o(  = 1,000  ; ,0,  = 2,000 ; ,i(  = 10,000. 

4.  On  this  fact  most  interpretations  of  the  Apocalyptic  puzzle  are 
based.  It  is  urged  by  Bleek,  DeWette,  Wieseler,  and  others,  that  the 
number  666  must  be  deciphered  from  the  Greek  alphabet,  since  the 
book  was  written  in  Greek  and  for  Greek  readers,  and  uses  the  Greek 
letters  Alpha  and  Omega  repeatedly  as  a designation  of  Christ,  the  Be- 
ginning and  the  End  (1:8;  21  : 6 ; 22  : 13).  On  the  other  hand,  Ewald 
and  Kenan,  and  all  who  favor  the  Nero  hypothesis,  appeal  against  this 
argument  to  the  strongly  Hebraistic  spirit  and  coloring  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse and  the  familiarity  of  its  Jewish  Christian  readers  with  the  Hebrew 
alphabet.  The  writer,  moreover,  may  have  preferred  this  for  the  pur- 
pose of  partial  concealment ; just  as  he  substituted  Babylon  for  Rome 
(comp.  1 Pet.  5 : 13).  But  after  all,  the  former  view  is  much  more  natu- 
ral. John  wrote  to  churches  of  Asia  Minor,  chiefly  gathered  from  Gen- 
tile converts  who  knew  no  Hebrew.  Had  he  addressed  Christians  in 
Palestine,  the  case  might  be  different. 

5.  The  number  666  (three  sixes)  must,  in  itself,  be  a significant 
number,  if  we  keep  in  view  the  symbolism  of  numbers  which  runs 
through  the  whole  Apocalypse.  It  is  remarkable  that  the  numerical 
value  of  the  name  Jesus  is  888  (three  eights),  and  exceeds  the 
trinity  of  the  sacred  number  (777)  as  much  as  the  number  of  the  beast 
falls  below  it.2 

6.  The  “ beast  ” coming  out  of  the  sea  and  having  seven  heads  and  ten 
horns  (ch.  13  : 1-10)  is  the  anti-Christian  world-power  at  war  with  the 
church  of  Christ.  It  is,  as  in  Daniel,  an  apt  image  of  the  brutal  nature 
of  the  pagan  state.  It  is,  when  in  conflict  with  the  church,  the  secular 

’a  — 1,  >3  = 2,  p — 100,  a — 1,  £ = 60,  a = 1,  $ = 200  ; total,  365.  A vast 
number  of  engraved  stones,  called  “ Abraxas-gems,  ” are  still  extant.  The 
origin  of  Abraxas  is  usually  ascribed  to  Basilides  or  his  followers. 

2 l = 10  + 7?--84-<r  = 200  + o = 70 -t- v = 400 4- <r  = 200  ; total  lri<rovir  = 888. 
Comp.  Barnabas,  Ep.  c.  9 ; and  the  Sibylline  Books,  I.  324-331. 


101.  THE  APOCALYPSE. 


843 


or  political  Antichrist ; while  “ the  false  prophet,”  who  works  signs  and 
deceives  the  worshippers  of  the  beast  (16  : 13 ; 19  : 20 ; 20 : 10),  is  the 
intellectual  and  spiritual  Antichrist,  in  close  alliance  with  the  former, 
his  high-priest  and  minister  of  cultus,  so  to  say,  and  represents  the 
idolatrous  religion  which  animates  and  supports  the  secular  imperial- 
ism. In  wider  application,  the  false  prophet  may  be  taken  as  the  per- 
sonification of  all  false  doctrine  and  heresy  by  which  the  world  is  led 
astray.  For  as  there  are  “ many  Antichrists,”  so  there  are  also  many 
false  prophets.  The  name  “Antichrist,”  however,  never  occurs  in  the 
Apocalypse,  but  only  in  the  Epistles  of  John  (five  times),  and  there  in 
the  plural,  in  the  sense  of  “ false  prophets  ” or  heretical  teachers,  who 
deny  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh  (1  John  4 : 1-3).  Paul 
designates  the  Antichrist  as  “the  man  of  sin,”  “the  son  of  perdition 
who  opposeth  and  exalteth  himself  against  all  that  is  called  God  or  that 
is  worshipped ; so  that  he  sitteth  in  the  temple  of  God,  setting  himself 
forth  as  God  ” (2  Thess.  2 : 3,  4).  But  he  seems  to  look  upon  the  Roman 
empire  as  a restraining  power  which,  for  a time  at  least,  prevented  the 
full  outbreak  of  the  “mystery  of  lawlessness,”  then  already  at  work 
(ver.  6-8).  He  thus  wrote  a year  or  two  before  the  accession  of  Nero, 
and  sixteen  years  or  more  before  the  composition  of  the  Apocalypse. 

The  beast  must  refer  to  heathen  Rome  and  the  seven  heads  to  seven 
emperors.  This  is  evident  from  the  allusion  to  the  “ seven  mountains,” 
that  is,  the  seven-hilled  city  ( urbs  s&pticollis ) on  which  the  woman  sits, 
17 : 9.  But  not  a few  commentators  give  it  a wider  meaning,  and  under- 
stand by  the  heads  as  many  world-monarchies,  including  those  of  Dan- 
iel, before  Christ,  and  extending  to  the  last  times.  So  Auberlen,  Gaus- 
sen,  Hengstenberg,  Yon  Hofmann,  Godet,  and  many  English  divines. 

7.  The  numerous  inteiyretations  of  the  mystic  number  of  the  beast  may 
be  reduced  to  three  classes  : 

(a)  The  figures  666  represent  the  letters  composing  the  name  of  a 
historical  power,  or  of  a single  man,  in  conflict  with  Christ  and  his 
church.  Here  belong  the  explanations : Latinus,  Caesar- Augustus, 
Nero,  and  other  Roman  emperors  down  to  Diocletian.  Even  such  names 
as  Julian  the  Apostate,  Genseric,  Mohammed  ( Maometis ),  Luther  (Mar- 
tinas Lanterns ),  Joannes  Calvinus,  Beza  Antitheos,  Louis  XIV.,  Na- 
poleon Bonaparte,  the  Duke  of  Reichstadt  (called  “ King  of  Rome  ”), 
Napoleon  III.,  have  been  discovered  in  the  three  sixes  by  a strange 
kind  of  imposition.1 

1 These  pious  absurdities  are  surpassed  by  the  rationalistic  absurdity  of 
Volkmar,  who  (in  his  Com.  on  the  Apoc .,  1862,  p.  197)  carries  the  imaginary 
hostility  of  John  to  Paul  so  far  as  to  refer  “the  false  prophet”  (16  : 13  ; 
19  : 20)  to  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  because  he  taught  (Rom.  13)  that  every 
soul  should  be  subject  to  the  then  reigning  Nero  (i.  e. , the  beast)  ! Even  Hil- 
genfeld  ( Einieit . p.  436)  and  Samuel  Davidson  (I.  291),  while  agreeing  with 
Volkmar  in  the  Nero-hypothesis,  protest  against  such  impious  nonsense. 


844 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


(b)  The  number  is  chronological,  and  designates  the  duration  of  the  life 
of  the  beast,  whether  it  be  heathenism,  or  Mohammedanism,  or  popery. 

(c)  The  number  is  symbolical  of  Antichrist  and  the  anti-Christian 
power. 

We  now  proceed  to  the  principal  interpretations. 

Latinus  or  the  Roman  Empire. 

Lateinos  (Aareti/o?  for  Aarlvos,  Latinus ),  i.e.,  the  Latin  or  Roman  em- 
pire. This  is  the  numerical  value  of  666  in  Greek  : A = 30  + « = 
1 + r = 300  + f = 5 + t = 10  + = 50  + o = 70  + <r  = 200  = total  666. 
The  Greek  form  Aareivos  is  no  valid  objection ; for  ei  often  represents 
the  Latin  long  i,  as  in  Avtovcivos,  HavXeiws,  HatTfipos,  2ufifivos,  tyavarei- 
vos.  J.  E.  Clarke  shows  that  rj  Aartvij  fiacriXcia,  “the  Latin  empire,” like- 
wise gives  the  number  666. 1 

This  interpretation  is  the  oldest  we  know  of,  and  is  already  mentioned 
by  Irenseus,  the  first  among  the  Fathers  who  investigated  the  problem, 
and  who,  as  a pupil  of  Polycarp  in  Smyrna  (d.  155),  the  personal  friend 
of  John,  deserves  special  consideration  as  a witness  of  traditions  from 
the  school  of  the  beloved  disciple.  He  mentions  three  interpretations, 
all  based  on  the  Greek  alphabet,  namely  E vav%as  (which  is  of  no  ac- 
count), Aureivos  (which  he  deems  possible),  and  Teirav,  i.e.,  Titus  (which 
he,  upon  the  whole,  prefers),  but  he  abstains  from  a positive  decision, 
for  the  reason  that  the  Holy  Scripture  does  not  clearly  proclaim  the 
name  of  the  beast  or  Antichrist.2 

The  interpretation  Latinus  is  the  only  sensible  one  among  the  three, 
and  adopted  by  Hippolytus,  Bellarmin,  Eichhorn,  Bleek,  DeWette, 
Ebrard,  Diisterdieck,  Alford,  Wordsworth,  Lee,  and  others. 

Latinus  was  the  name  of  a king  of  Latium,  but  not  of  any  Roman 
emperor.  Hence  it  must  here  be  taken  in  a generic  sense,  and  applied 
to  the  whole  heathen  Roman  empire. 

Here  the  Roman  Catholic  divines  stop.3  But  many  Protestant  com- 

1 See  Lee,  Com.  p.  687.  Adam  Clarke  regarded  this  unanswerable. 

2 Adv.  Hcer.,  v.  30,  §§  3 and  4.  Josephus,  from  prudential  regard  to  his 
patrons,  the  Flavian  emperors,  withheld  the  interpretation  of  the  fourth 
beast  and  the  stone  cut  out  of  the  mountain  in  Daniel’s  vision.  Ant.  x.  10, 
§ 4.  On  which  Havercamp  remark ? : “ Nor  is  this  to  be  wondered  at  that  he 
would  not  now  meddle  with  things  future  ; for  he  had  no  mind  to  provoke  the 
Romans  by  speaking  of  the  destruction  of  that  city,  which  they  called  the 
eternal  city” 

3 If  they  go  further,  they  discover  the  anti  Christian  beast  in  the  mediaeval 
German  (the  so-called  “ Holy  Roman”)  empire  in  conflict  with  the  papacy,  in 
the  Napoleonic  imperialism,  the  Russian  Czarism,  the  modern  German  empire 
(the  anti-papal  Cultur-Kampf),  in  fact  in  every  secular  power  which  is  hostile 
to  the  interests  of  the  Roman  hierarchy  and  will  “not  go  to  Canossa.”  This 
would  be  the  very  reverse  of  the  old  Protestant  interpretation. 


§ 101.  THE  APOCALYPSE. 


845 

iuentators  apply  it  also,  in  a secondary  sense,  to  the  Latin  or  papal 
church  as  far  as  it  repeated  in  its  persecuting  spirit  the  sins  of  heathen 
Kome.  The  second  beast  which  is  described,  ch.  13  : 11-17,  as  coming 
out  of  the  earth,  and  having  two  horns  like  unto  a lamb,  and  speaking  as 
a dragon,  and  exercising  all  the  authority  of  the  first  beast  in  his  sight, 
is  referred  to  the  papacy.  The  false  prophet  receives  a similar  applica- 
tion. So  Luther,  Vitringa,  Bengel,  Auberlen,  Hengstenberg,  Ebrard, 
and  many  English  divines. 

Dean  Alford  advocates  this  double  application  in  his  Commen- 
tary. “ This  name,”  he  says,  “ describes  the  common  character  of  the 
rulers  of  the  former  Pagan  Homan  Empire  — ‘ Latini  sunt  qui  nunc 
regnant ,’  Iren. : and,  which  Irenseus  could  not  foresee,  unites  under 
itself  the  character  of  the  later  Papal  Homan  Empire  also,  as  revived 
and  kept  up  by  the  agency  of  its  false  prophet,  the  priesthood.  The 
Latin  Empire,  the  Latin  Church,  Latin  Christianity,  have  ever  been  its 
commonly  current  appellations : its  language,  civil  and  ecclesiastical, 
has  ever  been  Latin  : its  public  services,  in  defiance  of  the  most  obvi- 
ous requisite  for  public  worship,  have  ever  been  throughout  the  world 
conducted  in  Latin ; there  is  no  one  word  which  could  so  completely 
describe  its  character,  and  at  the  same  time  unite  the  ancient  and 
modern  attributes  of  the  two  beasts,  as  this.  Short  of  saying  abso- 
lutely that  this  was  the  word  in  St.  John’s  mind,  I have  the  strongest 
persuasion  that  no  other  can  be  found  approaching  so  near  to  a com- 
plete solution.”  Bishop  Wordsworth  gives  the  same  anti-papal  inter- 
pretation to  the  beast,  and  indulges  in  a variety  of  pious  and  far- 
fetched fancies.  See  his  Com.  on  ch.  13  : 18,  and  his  special  work  on 
the  Apocalypse. 


Nero. 

The  Apocalypse  is  a Christian  counterblast  against  the  Neronian  per- 
secution, and  Nero  is  represented  as  the  beast  of  the  abyss  who  will 
return  as  Antichrist.  The  number  666  signifies  the  very  name  of  this 
imperial  monster  in  Hebrew  letters,  yn5  Neron  Kzesar,  as  fol- 
lows : 5 (n)  = 50,  ^ (r)  = 200,  *i  (o)  = 6,  (n)  = 50,  p (k)  = 100,  0 (s)  = 60, 
(r)  = 200 ; in  all  666.  The  Neronian  coins  of  Asia  bear  the  inscrip- 
tion : Nfpo>i>  K aio-ap.  But  the  omission  of  the  n (which  would  add  10 
to  666)  from  = Kala-np,  has  been  explained  by  Ewald  ( Johanneische 
Schi'iften,  II.  263)  from  the  Syriac  in  which  it  is  omitted,  and  this  view 
is  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  inscriptions  of  Palmyra  from  the  third 
century  ; see  Renan  (L' Antechrist,  p.  415). 

The  coincidence,  therefore,  must  be  admitted,  and  is  at  any  rate 
most  remarkable,  since  Nero  was  the  first,  as  well  as  the  most  wicked, 
of  all  imperial  persecutors  of  Christianity,  and  eminently  worthy  of 
being  characterized  as  the  beast  from  the  abyss,  and  being  regarded  as 
the  type  and  forerunner  of  Antichrist. 


846 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


This  interpretation,  moreover,  has  the  advantage  of  giving  the  num« 
ber  of  a man  or  a particular  person  (which  is  not  the  case  with  Lateinos), 
and  affords  a satisfactory  explanation  of  the  varians  lectio  616 ; for  this 
number  precisely  corresponds  to  the  Latin  form,  Nero  Cesar,  and  was 
probably  substituted  by  a Latin  copyist,  who  in  his  calculation  dropped 
the  final  Nun  (=50),  from  Neron  (666  less  50=616). 

The  series  of  Roman  emperors  (excluding  Julius  Caesar),  according  to 
this  explanation,  is  counted  thus  : Augustus,  Tiberius,  Caligula,  Clau- 
dius, Nero,  Galba.  This  makes  Nero  (who  died  June  9,  68)  the  fifth, 
and  Galba  the  sixth,  and  seems  to  fit  precisely  the  passage  ch.  17  : 10  : 
“ Five  [of  the  seven  heads  of  the  beast]  are  fallen,  the  one  [Galba]  is, 
the  other  [the  seventh]  is  not  yet  come ; and  when  he  cometh  he  must 
continue  a little  while.”  This  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Apoca- 
lypse was  written  during  the  short  reign  of  Galba,  between  June  9,  68, 
and  January  15,  69.  It  is  further  inferred  from  ver.  11  (“  the  beast  that 
was,  and  is  not,  is  himself  also  an  eighth,  and  is  of  the  seven ; and  he 
goeth  into  perdition  ”),  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  seer  and  in  agreement 
with  a popular  rumor,  Nero,  one  of  the  seven  emperors,  would  return  as 
the  eighth  in  the  character  of  Antichrist,  but  shortly  perish. 

This  plausible  solution  of  the  enigma  was  almost  simultaneously  and 
independently  discovered,  between  1831  and  1837,  by  several  German 
scholars,  each  claiming  the  credit  of  originality,  viz. : C.  F.  A.  Fritzsche 
(in  the  “Annalen  der  gesammten  theol.  Liter.,”  I.  3,  Leipzig,  1831); 
F.  Benary  (in  the  “Zeitschrift  fur  specul.  Theol.,”  Berlin,  1836);  F. 
Hitzig  (in  Ostern  und  PJingsten,  lleidelb.,  1837)  ; E.  Reuss  (in  the 
“ Hallesche  Allg.  Lit.-Zeitung  ” for  Sept.,  1837) ; and  Ewald,  who  claims 
to  have  made  the  discovery  before  1831,  but  did  not  publish  it  till  1862. 
It  has  been  adopted  by  Baur,  Zeller,  Hilgenfeld,  Yolkmar,  Hausrath, 
Krenkel,  Gebhardt,  Renan,  Aube,  Reville,  Sabatier,  Sam.  Davidson 
(I.  291)  ; and  among  American  commentators  by  Stuart  and  Cowles.  It 
is  just  now  the  most  popular  interpretation,  and  regarded  by  its  cham- 
pions as  absolutely  conclusive. 

But,  as  already  stated  in  the  text,  there  are  serious  objections  to  the 
Nero-hypothesis : 

(1)  The  language  and  readers  of  the  Apocalypse  suggest  a Greek 
rather  than  a Hebrew  explanation  of  the  numerical  riddle. 

(2)  The  seer  clearly  distinguishes  the  beast,  as  a collective  name  for 
the  Roman  empire  (so  used  also  by  Daniel),  from  the  seven  heads,  i.e., 
kings  (fta(Ti\cis)  or  emperors.  Nero  is  one  of  the  five  heads  who  ruled 
before  the  date  of  the  Apocalypse.  He  was  “ slain  ” (committed  suicide), 
and  the  empire  fell  into  anarchy  for  two  years,  until  Vespasian  restored 
it,  and  so  the  death-stroke  was  healed  (13  : 3).  The  three  emperors  be- 
tween Nero  and  Vespasian  (Galba,  Otho,  and  Vitellius)  were  usurpers,  and 
represent  an  interregnum  and  the  deadly  wound  of  the  beast.  This  at 
least  is  a more  worthy  interpretation  and  consistent  with  the  actual  facts. 


§ 101.  TIIE  APOCALYPSE. 


847 


It  should  be  noticed,  however,  that  Josephus,  Ant.  XYIII.  2,  2 ; 6, 
10,  very  distinctly  includes  Julius  Caesar  among  the  emperors,  and 
calls  Augustus  the  second , Tiberius  the  third,  Caius  Caligula  the  fourth 
Bornan  emperor.  Suetonius  begins  his  Lives  of  the  Twelve  Caesars 
with  Julius  and  ends  with  Domitian,  including  the  lives  of  Galba, 
Otho,  and  Yitellius.  This  fact  tends  at  all  events  to  weaken  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Nero-hypothesis. 

(3)  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  a reasonable  motive  for  concealing  the 
detested  name  of  Nero  after  his  death.  For  this  reason  Cowles  makes 
Nero  the  sixth  emperor  (by  beginning  the  series  with  Julius  Caesar)  and 
assigns  the  composition  to  his  persecuting  reign.  But  this  does  not  ex- 
plain the  wound  of  the  beast  and  the  statement  that  “ it  was  and  is  not.,y 

(4)  A radical  error,  such  as  the  belief  in  the  absurd  heathen  fable  of 
the  return  of  Nero,  is  altogether  incompatible  with  the  lofty  character 
and  profound  wisdom  of  the  Apocalypse,  and  would  destroy  all  confi- 
dence in  its  prophecy.  If  John,  as  these  writers  maintain,  composed  it 
in  68,  he  lived  long  enough  to  be  undeceived,  and  would  have  corrected 
the  fatal  blunder  or  withheld  the  book  from  circulation. 

(5)  It  seems  incredible  that  such  an  easy  solution  of  the  problem 
should  have  remained  unknown  for  eighteen  centuries  and  been  reserved 
for  the  wits  of  half  a dozen  rival  rationalists  in  Germany.  Truth  is  truth, 
and  must  be  thankfully  accepted  from  any  quarter  and  at  any  time ; yet 
as  the  Apocalypse  was  written  for  the  benefit  of  contemporaries  of  Nero, 
one  should  think  that  such  a solution  would  not  altogether  have  escaped 
them.  Irenseus  makes  no  mention  of  it. 

The  Emperor  of  Bome. 

Caesar  BoMiE,  from  tain  ^lO^p.  So  Ewald  formerly  (in  his  first  com- 
mentary, published  in  1828).  But  this  gives  the  number  616,  which  is 
rejected  by  the  best  critics  in  favor  of  666.  In  his  later  work,  Ewald 
adopts  the  Nero-hypothesis  ( Die  Johanneischen  Schriften , Bd.  II.,  1862, 
p.  202  sq.). 

Caligula. 

From  rdi'oy  Kaio-ap.  But  this  counts  likewise  616. 

Titus. 

The  Greek  Telrav.  Irenseus  considers  this  the  most  probable  in- 
terpretation, because  the  word  is  composed  of  six  letters,  and  belongs 
to  a royal  tyrant.  If  we  omit  the  final  v (n),  we  get  the  other  reading 
(616).  The  objection  is  that  Titus,  the  destroyer  of  Jerusalem,  was  one 
of  the  best  emperors,  and  not  a persecutor  of  Christians. 

Vespasian,  Titus,  and  Domitian. 

Wetstein  refers  the  letters  to  Titus  Flavius  Vespasianus,  father  and 
sons  (Titus  and  Domitian).  He  thinks  that  John  used  both  numbers, 


848 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


616  in  the  first,  666  in  the  second  edition  of  his  book.  “ Eleganter ,”  he 
says  in  his  notes,  “et  apposite  Joannes  Titum  Flavium  Vespasianum  pat- 
rem  et  Jilios  hoc  nomine  designat  . . . Convenit  secundo  nomen  Tfinin 
prop.nomini  ipsorum  Titus,  lies  ipsa  etiam  convenit.  Titanes  fuerunt  3eo- 
pa\oi,  tales  etiam  Vespasiani.”  Nov.  Test.,  II.,  p.  806;  comp,  his  critical 
note  on  p.  805. 

Diocletian. 

Diocletian,  Emperor,  in  Roman  characters,  Diocles  Augustus,  count- 
ing only  some  of  the  letters,  namely  : Dio  CLes  aVg  Vst  Vs.1  Diocle- 
tian was  the  last  of  the  persecuting  emperors  (d.  313).  So  Bossuet.  To 
his  worthless  guess  the  Huguenots  opposed  the  name  of  the  “ grand 
monarch  ” and  persecutor  of  Protestants,  Louis  XIV.,  which  yields  the 
same  result  (LVDo  VICVs). 

The  Roman  Emperors  from  Augustus  to  Vespasian. 

Marcker  (in  the  “ Studien  und  Kritiken  ” for  1868,  p.  699)  has  found 
out  that  the  initial  letters  of  the  first  ten  Roman  emperors  from  Oc- 
tavianus  (Augustus)  to  Titus,  including  the  three  usurpers  Galba,  Otho, 
and  Vitellius,  yield  the  numerical  value  of  666.  Diisterdieck  (p.  467) 
calls  this  “ eine  frappante  Spieler ei.” 

Cjesar  Augustus. 

Kaiaapaf^aamv  (for  — r,  suited  to  the  neuter  Zrjplov),  i.e.,  the  “Caesar 
Augustan  ” beast.2  The  official  designation  of  the  Roman  emperors  was 
K dump  2 e^aaros  (Gesar  Augustus),  in  which  their  blasphemous  apoth- 
eosis culminates.  In  support  of  it  may  be  quoted  “the  names  of  blas- 
phemy on  the  heads  of  the  beast,”  13  : 1. 

This  is  the  conjecture  proposed  by  Dr.  Wieseler  in  his  book : Zur 
Geschichte  der  Neutest.  Schrift  und  des  Urchristenthums , 1880,  p.  169. 
It  is  certainly  ingenious  and  more  consistent  with  the  character  of  the 
Apocalypse  than  the  Nero-hypothesis.  It  substantially  agrees  with  the 
interpretation  Lateinos.  But  the  substitution  of  a final  v for  a is  an 
objection,  though  not  more  serious  than  the  omission  of  the  yodh  from 

no*ip. 

The  Chronologic  An  Solutions. — The  Duration  of  Antichrist. 

The  number  666  signifies  the  duration  of  the  beast  or  anti-Christian 
world  power,  and  the  false  prophet  associated  with  the  beast. 

(1)  The  duration  of  heathenism.  But  heathen  Rome,  which  perse* 
cuted  the  church,  was  christianized  after  the  conversion  of  Constantine, 

1 D — 500  -i-I  = l-}  C=100  + L = 50  + V = 5 + V=  5 = 666. 

9 The  numerical  value  of  Kai<rap<refia.<rTov  is  = 20  + 1 + 10  200  + 1 + 100 

+ 200  + 5 + 2 + 1 + 6 + 70  + 50,  in  all  666. 


§ 101.  THE  APOCALYPSE. 


849 


a.d.  311.  The  other  forms  and  subsequent  history  of  heathenism  lie 
outside  of  the  apocalyptic  vision. 

(2)  Mohammedanism.  Pope  Innocent  III.,  when  rousing  Western 
Europe  to  a new  crusade,  declared  the  Saracens  to  be  the  beast,  and 
Mohammed  the  false  prophet  whose  power  would  last  six  hundred  and 
sixty-six  years.  See  his  bull  of  1213,  in  which  he  summoned  the  fourth 
Lateran  Council,  in  Hardouin,  Cone.,  Tom.  VII.  3.  But  six  hundred 
and  sixty-six  years  have  passed  since  the  Hegira  (622),  and  even  since 
tne  fourth  Lateran  Council  (1215) ; yet  Islam  still  sits  on  the  throne  in 
Constantinople,  and  rules  over  one  hundred  and  sixty  million  of  con- 
sciences. 

(3) .  The  anti-Christian  papacy.  This  interpretation  was  suggested  by 
mediaeval  sects  hostile  to  Rome,  and  was  matured  by  orthodox  Protes- 
tant divines  of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  under  the  fresh 
impression  of  the  fearful  persecutions  which  were  directly  instigated 
or  approved  by  the  papacy,  and  which  surpass  in  cruelty  and  extent  the 
persecutions  of  heathen  Rome.  It  is  asserted  that  the  terrible  Duke  of 
Alva  alone  put  more  Protestants  to  death  in  the  Netherlands  within  a 
few  years  than  all  the  heathen  emperors  from  Nero  to  Diocletian  ; and 
that  the  victims  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition  (105,000  persons  in  eighteen 
years  under  Torquemada’s  administration)  outnumber  the  ancient  mar- 
tyrs. It  became  almost  a Protestant  article  of  faith  that  the  mystical 
Babylon,  the  mother  of  harlots,  riding  on  the  beast,  the  woman  drunken 
with  the  blood  of  the  saints,  and  with  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  of  Jesus 
(Apoc.  17 : 5 sqq.),  is  none  other  than  the  pseudo -Christian  and  anti- 
Christian  church  of  Rome,  and  this  view  is  still  widely  prevalent,  espe- 
cially in  Great  Britain  and  North  America. 

Luther  struck  the  key-note  of  this  anti-popery  exegesis.  He  had  at 
first  a very  low  opinion  of  the  Apocalypse,  and  would  not  recognize  it 
as  apostolic  or  prophetic  (1522),  but  afterward  he  utilized  it  for  po- 
lemic purposes  (in  a preface  to  his  edition  of  the  N.  T.  of  1530).  He 
dated  the  one  thousand  years  (20 : 7)  with  Augustin  from  the  composi- 
tion of  the  book,  and  the  six  hundred  and  sixty-six  years  from  Gregory 
VII.,  as  the  supposed  founder  of  the  papacy,  and  understood  Gog  and 
Magog  to  mean  the  unspeakable  Turks  and  the  Jews.  As  Gregory  VII. 
was  elected  pope  1073,  the  anti-Christian  era  ought  to  have  come  to 
an  end  a.d.  1739 ; but  that  year  passed  off  without  any  change  in  the 
history  of  the  papacy. 

Luther  was  followed  by  Chytrseus  (1563),  Selnecker  (1567),  Hoe  v. 
Honegg  (1610  and  1640),  and  other  Lutheran  commentators.  Calvin 
and  Beza  wisely  abstained  from  prophetic  exposition,  but  other  Reformed 
divines  carried  out  the  anti-popery  scheme  with  much  learning,  as  Bib- 
liander  (1549  and  1559),  Bullinger  (1557),  David  Pareus  (1618),  Joseph 
Mede  (the  founder  of  the  ingenious  system  of  synchronism,  in  his  Clavis 
Apocalyptica , 1627),  Coccejus  (1696),  Vitringa  (a  very  learned  and  use* 


850 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


ful  commentator,  1705,  3d  ed.  1721),  and  Joh.  Albrecht  Bengei  (in  his 
Gnomon , his  OrdoTemporum , 1741,  and  especially  his  Erklarte  Offenbar - 
ung  Johannis , 1740,  new  ed.  1834).  This  truly  great  and  good  man 
elaborated  a learned  scheme  of  chronological  interpretation,  and  fixed 
the  end  of  the  anti-Christian  (papal)  reign  at  the  year  1836,  and  many 
pious  people  among  his  admirers  in  Wiirtemburg  were  in  anxious  ex- 
pectation of  the  millennium  during  that  year.  But  it  passed  away  with- 
out any  serious  change,  and  this  failure,  according  to  Bengel’s  own  cor- 
rect prediction,  indicates  a serious  error  in  his  scheme.  Later  writers 
have  again  and  again  predicted  the  fall  of  the  papacy  and  the  beginning 
of  the  millennium,  advancing  the  date  as  times  progress  ; but  the  years 
1848  and  1870  have  passed  away,  and  the  Pope  still  lives,  enjoying  a 
green  old  age,  with  the  additional  honor  of  infallibility,  which  the 
Fathers  never  heard  of,  which  even  St.  Peter  never  claimed,  and  St. 
Paul  effectually  disputed  at  Antioch.  All  mathematical  calculations 
about  the  second  advent  are  doomed  to  disappointment,  and  those  who 
want  to  know  more  than  our  blessed  Lord  knew  in  the  days  of  his  flesh 
deserve  to  be  disappointed.  “ It  is  not  for  you  to  know  times  or  sea- 
sons, which  the  Father  hath  set  within  his  own  authority  ” (Acts  1:7). 
This  settles  the  question. 

Mystical  and  Symbolical  Interpretations. 

The  number  is  neither  alphabetical  nor  chronological,  but  the  mysti- 
cal or  symbolical  name  of  Antichrist,  who  is  yet  to  come.  Here  we 
meet  again  with  different  views. 

Primasius,  the  African  commentator  of  the  Apocalypse  (a  pupil  of 
Augustin),  mentions  two  names  as  giving  the  general  characteristics  of 
Antichrist : ’A vregos  and  dpi/ou/ze,  the  former  honori  contrarius , the  other 
from  dpveopai , to  deny , by  which  the  Antichrist  is  justly  described, 
“ utpote  per  duas  partes  orationisy  nominis  scilicet  et  verbit  et  personce 
qualitas  et  opeids  insinuatur  asperitas”  Utterly  worthless.  See  Liicke, 
p.  997.  Zlillig  finds  in  the  figure  the  name  of  Bileam.  Not  much  better 
is  Hengstenberg’s  explanation:  Adonikamy  i.e.f  “The  Lord  arises,”  a 
good  name  for  Antichrist  (2  Thess.  2:4)!  He  bases  it  on  Ezra  2 : 13  : 
“The  children  of  Adonikam,  six  hundred  and  sixty-six.”  Ezra  gives  a 
list  of  the  children  of  Israel  who  returned  from  the  captivity  under 
Zerubbabel.  What  this  has  to  do  with  Antichrist  is  difficult  to  see. 

Yon  Hofmann  and  Fuller  think  that  the  number  implies  the  personal 
name  of  Antichrist. 

Another  view  is  this : the  number  is  symbolical,  like  all  other  num- 
bers in  the  Apocalypse,  and  signifies  the  anti-Christian  worldpower  in 
all  its  successive  forms  from  heathen  Rome  down  to  the  end.  Hence  it 
admits  of  many  applications,  as  there  are  “many  Antichrists.”  The 
number  six  is  the  number  of  human  work  and  toil  (six  days  of  the 
week),  as  seven  is  the  number  of  divine  rest.  Or,  six  is  the  half  of 


§ 101.  TIIE  APOCALYPSE. 


851 


twelve — the  number  of  the  church — and  indicates  the  divided  condition 
of  the  temporal  power.  Three  sixes  signify  worldliness  (worldly  glory, 
worldly  wisdom,  worldly  civilization)  at  the  height  of  power,  which  with 
all  vaunted  strength  is  but  weakness  and  folly,  and  falls  short  of  the 
divine  perfection  symbolized  by  the  numbers  seven  and  twelve.  Such 
or  similar  views  were  suggested  by  Herder,  Auberlen,  Rosch,  Hengsten- 
berg,  Burger,  Maurice,  Wordsworth,  Vaughan,  Carpenter,  etc. 

The  Messiah  of  Satan. 

To  the  class  of  mystical  interpretation  belongs  the  recent  view  of 
Professor  Godet,  of  Neuchatel,  which  deserves  special  mention.  This 
eminent  commentator  sees  in  666  the  emblematic  name  of  the  Messiah 
of  Satan  in  opposition  to  the  divine  Messiah.  The  number  was  origi- 
nally represented  by  the  three  letters  The  first  and  the  last  let- 

ters are  an  abridgment  of  the  name  of  Christ,  and  have  the  value  of  606 

= 600  + r = 6) ; the  middle  £ is,  in  virtue  of  its  form  and  of  the  sibi- 
lant sound,  the  emblem  of  Satan,  and  as  a cipher  has  the  value  of  60. 
Satan  is  called  in  the  Apocalypse  the  old  serpent  in  allusion  to  the  history 
of  the  temptation  (Gen.  3).  This  explanation  was  first  suggested  by 
Heumann  and  Herder,  and  is  made  by  Godet  the  basis  of  an  original 
theory,  namely,  that  Antichrist  or  the  man  of  sin  will  be  a Jew  who  will 
set  up  a carnal  Israel  in  opposition  to  the  true  Messiah,  and  worship 
the  prince  of  this  world  in  order  to  gain  universal  empire.1  Corruptio 
optimi  pessima.  Renan  says:  “Nothing  can  equal  in  wickedness  the 
wickedness  of  Jews  : at  the  same  time  the  best  of  men  have  been  Jews ; 
you  may  say  of  this  race  whatever  good  or  evil  you  please,  without  dan- 
ger of  overstepping  the  truth.”  In  blasphemy,  as  well  as  in  adoration, 
the  Jew  is  the  foremost  of  mankind.  Only  an  apostate  can  blaspheme 
with  all  his  heart.  Our  Gentile  Voltaires  are  but  lambs  as  compared 
with  Jews  in  reviling  Christ  and  his  church.  None  but  Israel  could 
give  birth  to  Judas,  none  but  apostate  Israel  can  give  birth  to  Anti- 
christ. Israel  answers  precisely  to  the  description  of  the  apocalyptic 
beast,  which  was  and  is  not  and  shall  be  (17  : 11),  which  was  wounded  to 
death,  and  is  to  be  miraculously  healed,  in  order  to  play,  as  the  eighth 
head,  the  part  of  Antichrist.  Godet  refers  to  the  rising  power  of  the 
Jews  in  wealth,  politics,  and  literature,  and  especially  their  command 
of  the  anti-Christian  press  in  Christian  countries,  as  indications  of  the 
approach  of  the  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy. 

Godet  holds  to  the  late  date  of  the  Apocalypse  under  Domitian,  and 
rejects  the  application  of  the  seven  heads  of  the  beast  to  Roman 
emperors.  He  applies  them,  like  Auberlen,  Hengstenberg,  and  others, 
to  as  many  empires,  before  and  after  Christ,  but  brings  in,  as  a new  fea- 
ture, the  Herodian  dynasty,  which  was  subject  to  the  Roman  power. 

1 In  the  essay  above  quoted,  p.  388,  and  in  the  article  Revelation  in  John- 
son’s “ Cyclopaedia,”  III.  1606  sqq. 


852 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


According  to  his  view,  the  first  head  is  ancient  Egypt  trying  to 
destroy  Israel  in  its  cradle  ; the  second  is  the  Assyro-Babylonian  empire 
which  destroyed  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  and  then  Jerusalem ; 
the  third  is  the  Persian  empire,  which  held  restored  Israel  under  its 
authority ; the  fourth  is  the  Greek  monarchy  under  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
(the  little  horn  of  Daniel,  ch.  8,  the  Antichrist  of  the  Old  Testament), 
who  attempted  to  suppress  the  worship  of  God  in  Israel,  and  to  substi- 
tute that  of  Zeus ; the  fifth  is  the  Jewish  state  under  the  Herods  and 
the  pontificates  of  Annas  and  Caiaphas,  who  crucified  the  Saviour  and 
then  tried  to  destroy  his  church  ; the  sixth  is  the  Roman  empire,  which 
is  supposed  to  embrace  all  political  power  in  Europe  to  this  day;  the 
seventh  head  is  that  power  of  short  duration  which  shall  destroy  the 
whole  political  system  of  Europe,  and  prepare  it  for  the  arrival  of 
Antichrist  from  the  bosom  of  infidel  Judaism.  In  this  way  Godet 
harmonizes  the  Apocalypse  with  the  teaching  of  Paul  concerning  the 
restraining  effect  of  the  Roman  empire,  which  will  be  overthrown  in 
order  to  give  way  to  the  full  sway  of  Antichrist.  The  eighth  head  is 
Israel  restored,  with  a carnal  Messiah  at  its  head,  who  will  preach  the 
worship  of  humanity  and  overthrow  Rome,  the  old  enemy  of  the  Jews 
(Apoc.  18),  but  be  overthrown  in  turn  by  Christ  (ch.  19  and  2 Thess. 
2:8).  Then  follows  the  millennium,  the  sabbath  of  humanity  on  earth 
after  its  long  week  of  work,  not  necessarily  a visible  reign  of  Christ, 
but  a reign  by  his  Spirit.  At  the  end  of  this  period,  Satan,  who  as  yet 
is  only  bound,  shall  try  once  more  to  destroy  the  work  of  God,  but  shall 
only  prepare  his  final  defeat,  and  give  the  signal  for  the  universal  judg- 
ment (ch.  20).  The  terrestrial  state  founded  on  the  day  of  creation  now 
gives  place  to  the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth  (ch.  21),  in  which 
God  shall  be  all  in  all.  Anticipating  the  sight  of  this  admirable  spec- 
tacle, John  prostrates  himself  and  invites  all  the  faithful  to  cry  with  the 
Spirit  and  the  spouse,  “Lord,  come— come  soon”  (ch.  22).  What  a 
vast  drama  ! What  a magnificent  conclusion  to  the  Scriptures  opening 
with  Genesis  ! The  first  creation  made  man  free ; the  second  shall 
make  him  holy,  and  then  the  work  of  God  is  accomplished. 

Conclusion. 

A very  ingenious  interpretation,  with  much  valuable  truth,  but  not 
the  last  word  yet  on  this  mysterious  book,  and  very  doubtful  in  its 
solution  of  the  numerical  riddle.  The  primary  meaning  of  the  beast,  as 
already  remarked,  is  heathen  Rome,  as  represented  by  that  monster 
tyrant  and  persecutor,  Nero,  the  very  incarnation  of  satanic  wickedness. 
The  oldest  interpretation  ( Lateinos ),  known  already  to  a grand-pupil  of 
St.  John,  is  also  the  best,  and  it  is  all  the  more  plausible  because  the 
other  interpretations  which  give  us  the  alphabetical  value  of  666, 
namely,  Nero  and  Ccesar  Augustus , likewise  point  to  the  same  Roman 


g 102.  CONCLUDING  REFLECTIONS. 


853 


power  which  kept  up  a bloody  crusade  of  three  hundred  years  against 
Christianity.  But  the  political  beast,  and  its  intellectual  ally,  the 
false  prophet,  appear  again  and  again  in  history,  and  make  war  upon 
the  church  and  the  truth  of  Christ,  within  and  without  the  circle  of  the 
old  Roman  empire.  Many  more  wonders  of  exegetical  ability  and  his- 
torical learning  will  yet  be  performed  before  the  mysteries  of  Revelation 
are  solved,  if  they  ever  will  be  solved  before  the  final  fulfilment.  In 
the  meantime,  the  book  will  continue  to  accomplish  its  practical  mission 
of  comfort  and  encouragement  to  every  Christian  in  the  conflict  of  faith 
for  the  crown  of  life. 


§ 102.  Concluding  Reflections.  Faith  and  Criticism. 

There  is  no  necessary  conflict  between  faith  and  criticism 
any  more  than  between  revelation  and  reason  or  between  faith 
and  philosophy.  God  is  the  author  of  both,  and  he  cannot 
contradict  himself.  There  is  an  uncritical  faith  and  a faithless 
criticism,  as  there  is  a genuine  philosophy  and  a philosophy 
falsely  so  called  ; but  this  is  no  argument  either  against  faith  or 
criticism  ; for  the  best  gifts  are  liable  to  abuse  and  perversion  ; 
and  the  noblest  works  of  art  may  be  caricatured.  The  apostle 
of  faith  directs  us  to  “ prove  all  things,”  and  to  “ hold  fast  that 
which  is  good.”  We  believe  in  order  to  understand,  and  true 
faith  is  the  mother  of  knowledge.  A rational  faith  in  Chris- 
tianity, as  the  best  and  final  religion  which  God  gave  to  man- 
kind, owes  it  to  itself  to  examine  the  foundation  on  which  it 
rests ; and  it  is  urged  by  an  irresistible  impulse  to  vindicate  the 
truth  against  every  form  of  error.  Christianity  needs  no 
apology.  Conscious  of  its  supernatural  strength,  it  can  boldly 
meet  every  foe  and  convert  him  into  an  ally. 

Looking  back  upon  the  history  of  the  apostolic  age,  it  appears 
to  us  as  a vast  battle-field  of  opposite  tendencies  and  schools. 
Every  inch  of  ground  is  disputed  and  has  to  be  reconquered ; 
every  fact,  as  well  as  every  doctrine  of  revelation,  is  called 
in  question ; every  hypothesis  is  tried  ; all  the  resources  of 
learning,  acumen,  and  ingenuity  are  arrayed  against  the  citadel 
of  the  Christian  faith.  The  citadel  is  impregnable,  and  victory 
is  certain,  but  not  to  those  who  ignorantly  or  superciliously 


854 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


underrate  the  strength  of  the  besieging  army.  In  the  sixteenth 
century  the  contest  was  between  Roman  Catholicism  and  Evan- 
gelical Protestantism ; in  the  nineteenth  century  the  question 
is  Christianity  or  infidelity.  Then  both  parties  believed  in  the 
inspiration  of  the  New  Testament  and  the  extent  of  the  canon, 
differing  only  in  the  interpretation  ; now  inspiration  is  denied, 
and  the  apostolicity  of  all  but  four  or  five  books  is  assailed. 
Then  the  Word  of  God,  with  or  without  tradition,  was  the  final 
arbiter  of  religious  controversies ; now  human  reason  is  the  ulti- 
mate tribunal. 

We  live  in  an  age  of  discovery,  invention,  research,  and 
doubt.  Scepticism  is  well  nigh  omnipresent  in  the  thinking 
world.  It  impregnates  the  atmosphere.  We  can  no  more  ig- 
nore it  than  the  ancient  Fathers  could  ignore  the  Gnostic  specu- 
lations of  their  day.  Nothing  is  taken  for  granted ; nothing 
believed  on  mere  authority ; everything  must  be  supported  by 
adequate  proof,  everything  explained  in  its  natural  growth  from 
the  seed  to  the  fruit.  Roman  Catholics  believe  in  an  infallible 
oracle  in  the  Vatican ; but  whatever  the  oracle  may  decree, 
the  earth  moves  and  will  continue  to  move  around  the  sun. 
Protestants,  having  safely  crossed  the  Red  Sea,  cannot  go  back 
to  the  flesh-pots  of  the  land  of  bondage,  but  must  look  forward 
to  the  land  of  promise.  In  the  night,  says  a proverb,  all  cattle 
are  black,  but  the  daylight  reveals  the  different  colors. 

Why  did  Christ  not  write  the  New  Testament,  as  Mohammed 
wrote  the  Koran  ? Writing  was  not  beneath  his  dignity;  he 
did  wTite  once  in  the  sand,  though  we  know  not  what.  God 
himself  wrote  the  Ten  Commandments  on  two  tables  of  stone. 
But  Moses  broke  them  to  pieces  when  he  saw  that  the  people  of 
Israel  worshipped  the  golden  calf  before  the  thunders  from  Sinai 
had  ceased  to  reverberate  in  their  ears.  They  might  have 
turned  those  tables  into  idols.  God  buried  the  great  law-giver 
out  of  sight  and  out  of  the  reach  of  idolatry.  The  gospel  was 
still  less  intended  to  be  a dumb  idol  than  the  law.  It  is  not  a 
killing  letter  but  a lifegiving  spirit.  It  is  the  spirit  that  quick  - 
eneth ; the  flesh  profiteth  nothing ; the  words  of  Christ 


§ 102.  CONCLUDING  REFLECTIONS. 


855 


“ are  spirit  and  are  life.”  A book  written  by  his  own  unerring 
hand,  unless  protected  by  a perpetual  miracle,  would  have  been 
subject  to  the  same  changes  and  corruptions  in  the  hands  of 
fallible  transcribers  and  printers  as  the  books  of  his  disciples, 
and  the  original  autograph  would  have  perished  with  the  brittle 
papyrus.  Nor  would  it  have  escaped  the  unmerciful  assaults  of 
sceptical  and  infidel  critics,  and  misinterpretations  of  commen- 
tators and  preachers.  He  himself  was  crucified  by  the  hierarchy 
of  his  own  people,  whom  he  came  to  save.  What  better  fate 
could  have  awaited  his  book  ? Of  course,  it  would  have  risen 
from  the  dead,  in  spite  of  the  doubts  and  conjectures  and  false- 
hoods of  unbelieving  men ; but  the  same  is  true  of  the  writings 
of  the  apostles,  though  thousands  of  copies  have  been  burned 
by  heathens  and  false  Christians.  Thomas  might  put  his  hand 
into  the  wound-prints  of  his  risen  Lord  ; but  “ Blessed  are  they 
that  have  not  seen  and  yet  have  believed.” 

We  must  believe  in  the  Holy  Spirit  who  lives  and  moves  in 
the  Church  and  is  the  invisible  power  behind  the  written  and 
printed  word. 

The  form  in  which  the  authentic  records  of  Christianity  have 
come  down  to  us,  with  their  variations  and  difficulties,  is  a 
constant  stimulus  to  study  and  research  and  calls  into  exercise 
all  the  intellectual  and  moral  faculties  of  men.  Every  one  must 
strive  after  the  best  understanding  of  the  truth  with  a faithful 
use  of  his  opportunities  and  privileges,  which  are  multiplying 
with  every  generation. 

The  New  Testament  is  a revelation  of  spiritual  and  eternal 
truth  to  faith,  and  faith  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  though 
rooted  in  the  deepest  wants  and  aspirations  of  man.  It  has  to 
fight  its  way  through  an  unbelieving  world,  and  the  conflict  waxes 
hotter  and  hotter  as  the  victory  comes  nearer.  For  the  last  half 
century  the  apostolic  writings  have  been  passing  through  the 
purgatory  of  the  most  scorching  criticism  to  which  a book  can 
be  subjected.  The  opposition  is  itself  a powerful  testimony  to 
their  vitality  and  importance. 

There  are  two  kinds  of  scepticism : one  represented  by 


856 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


Thomas,  honest,  earnest,  seeking  and  at  last  finding  the  truth; 
the  other  represented  by  Sadducees  and  Pontius  Pilate,  super- 
ficial,  worldly,  frivolous,  indifferent  to  truth  and  ending  in  de- 
spair. With  the  latter  “ even  the  gods  reason  in  vain.”  When 
it  takes  the  trouble  to  assail  the  Bible,  it  deals  in  sneers  and 
ridicule  which  admit  of  no  serious  answer.  The  roots  of  infi- 
delity lie  in  the  heart  and  will  rather  than  in  the  reason  and  in- 
tellect, and  wilful  opposition  to  the  truth  is  deaf  to  any  argu- 
ment. But  honest,  truth-loving  scepticism  always  deserves  re- 
gard and  sympathy  and  demands  a patient  investigation  of  the 
real  or  imaginary  difficulties  which  are  involved  in  the  pro- 
blem of  the  origin  of  Christianity.  It  may  be  more  useful 
to  the  church  than  an  unthinking  and  unreasoning  orthodoxy. 
One  of  the  ablest  and  purest  sceptical  critics  of  the  century 
(DeWette)  made  the  sad,  but  honorable  confession: 

“I  lived  in  times  of  doubt  and  strife, 

When  childlike  faith  was  forced  to  yield  ; 

I struggled  to  the  end  of  life, 

Alas  ! I did  not  gain  the  field.” 

But  lie  did  gain  the  field,  after  all,  at  last ; for  a few  months 
before  liis  death  lie  wrote  and  published  this  significant  sen- 
tence : “ I know  that  in  no  other  name  can  salvation  be  found, 
than  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  the  Crucified,  and  there  is 
nothing  higher  for  mankind  than  the  divine  humanity  ( Gott - 
menschheit)  realized  in  him,  and  the  kingdom  of  God  planted  by 
him.”  Blessed  are  those  that  seek  the  truth,  for  they  shall  find  it. 

The  critical  and  historical  rationalism  which  was  born  and 
matured  in  this  century  in  the  land  of  Luther,  and  has  spread  in 
Switzerland,  France,  Holland,  England,  Scotland,  and  America, 
surpasses  in  depth  and  breadth  of  learning,  as  well  as  in  earnest- 
ness of  spirit,  all  older  forms  of  infidelity  and  heresy.  It  is  not 
superficial  and  frivolous,  as  the  rationalism  of  the  eighteenth 
century  ; it  is  not  indifferent  to  truth,  but  intensely  interested  in 
ascertaining  the  real  facts,  and  tracing  the  origin  and  develop- 
ment of  Christianity,  as  a great  historical  phenomenon  But  it 


§ 102.  CONCLUDING  REFLECTIONS. 


857 


arrogantly  claims  to  be  the  criticism  y)ar  excellence,  as  the  Gnos- 
ticism of  the  ancient  church  pretended  to  have  the  monopoly  of 
knowledge.  There  is  a historical,  conservative,  and  constructive 
criticism,  as  well  as  an  unhistorical,  radical,  and  destructive  criti 
cism ; and  the  former  must  win  the  fight  as  sure  as  God’s  truth 
will  outlast  all  error.  So  there  is  a believing  and  Christian 
Gnosticism  as  well  as  an  unbelieving  and  anti-  (or  pseudo-)  Chris- 
tian Gnosticism. 

The  negative  criticism  of  the  present  generation  has  concen- 
trated its  forces  upon  the  life  of  Christ  and  the  apostolic  age, 
and  spent  an  astonishing  amount  of  patient  research  upon  the 
minutest  details  of  its  history.  And  its  labors  have  not  been  in 
vain ; on  the  contrary,  it  has  done  a vast  amount  of  good,  as 
well  as  evil.  Its  strength  lies  in  the  investigation  of  the  human 
and  literary  aspect  of  the  Bible  ; its  weakness  in  the  ignoring 
of  its  divine  and  spiritual  character.  It  forms  thus  the  very 
antipode  of  the  older  orthodoxy,  which  so  overstrained  the  the- 
ory of  inspiration  as  to  reduce  the  human  agency  to  the  mechan- 
ism of  the  pen.  We  must  look  at  both  aspects.  The  Bible  is 
the  Word  of  God  and  the  word  of  holy  men  of  old.  It  is  a 
revelation  of  man,  as  well  as  of  God.  It  reveals  man  in  all  his 
phases  of  development — innocence,  fall,  redemption — in  all  the 
varieties  of  character,  from  heavenly  purity  to  satanic  wicked- 
ness, with  all  his  virtues  and  vices,  in  all  his  states  of  experience, 
and  is  an  ever-flowing  spring  of  inspiration  to  the  poet,  the  artist, 
the  historian,  and  divine.  It  reflects  and  perpetuates  the  mystery 
of  the  incarnation.  It  is  the  word  of  him  who  proclaimed  him- 
self the  Son  of  Man,  as  well  as  the  Son  of  God.  “ Men  spake 
from  God,  being  moved  by  the  Holy  Sjoirit .”  Here  all  is  di- 
vine and  all  is  human. 

No  doubt  the  New  Testament  is  the  result  of  a gradual  growth 
and  conflict  of  different  forces,  which  were  included  in  the  orig- 
inal idea  of  Christianity  and  were  drawn  out  as  it  passed  from 
Christ  to  his  disciples,  from  the  Jews  to  the  Gentiles,  from  Je- 
rusalem to  Antioch  and  Home,  and  as  it  matured  in  the  mind  of 
the  leading  apostles.  No  doubt  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  were 


858 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


written  by  certain  men,  at  a certain  time,  in  a certain  place, 
under  certain  surroundings,  and  for  definite  ends  ; and  all  these 
questions  are  legitimate  objects  of  inquiry  and  eminently  deserv- 
ing of  ever-renewed  investigation.  Many  obscure  points  have 
been  cleared  up,  thanks,  in  part,  to  these  very  critics,  who  in- 
tended to  destroy,  and  helped  to  build  up. 

The  literary  history  of  the  apostolic  age,  like  its  missionary 
progress,  was  guided  by  a special  providence.  Christ  only  fin- 
ished a part  of  his  work  while  on  earth.  He  pointed  his  disci- 
ples to  greater  works,  which  they  would  accomplish  in  his  name 
and  by  his  power,  after  his  resurrection.  He  promised  them 
his  unbroken  presence,  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who, 
as  the  other  Advocate,  should  lead  them  into  the  whole  truth  and 
open  to  them  the  understanding  of  all  his  words.  The  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  are  a history  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  of  the  post- 
resurrection work  of  Christ  in  establishing  his  kingdom  on  earth. 
Filled  with  that  Spirit,  the  apostles  and  evangelists  went  forth  in- 
to a hostile  world  and  converted  it  to  Christ  by  their  living  word, 
and  they  continue  their  conquering  march  by  their  written  word. 

Unbelieving  criticism  sees  only  the  outside  surface  of  the 
greatest  movement  in  history,  and  is  blind  to  the  spiritual  forces 
working  from  within  or  refuses  to  acknowledge  them  as  truly 
divine.  In  like  manner,  the  materialistic  and  atheistic  scientists  of 
the  age  conceive  of  nature’s  laws  without  a lawgiver ; of  a creature 
without  a creator ; and  stop  with  the  effect,  without  rising  to  the 
cause,  which  alone  affords  a rational  explanation  of  the  effect. 

And  here  we  touch  upon  the  deepest  spring  of  all  forms  of 
rationalism,  and  upon  the  gulf  which  inseparably  divides  it  from 
supernaturalism.  It  is  the  opposition  to  the  supernatural  and  the 
miraculous.  It  denies  God  in  nature  and  God  in  history,  and, 
in  its  ultimate  consequences,  it  denies  the  very  existence  of  God. 
Deism  and  atheism  have  no  place  for  a miracle  ; but  belief  in 
the  existence  of  an  Almighty  Maker  of  all  things  visible  and  in- 
visible, as  the  ultimate  and  all  sufficient  cause  of  all  phenomena 
in  nature  and  in  history,  implies  the  possibility  of  miracle  at  any 
time ; not,  indeed,  as  a violation  of  his  own  laws,  but  as  a man 


§ 102.  CONCLUDING  REFLECTIONS.  859 

ifestation  of  his  lawgiving  and  creative  power  over  and  above 
(not  against)  the  regular  order  of  events.  The  reality  of  the 
miracle,  in  any  particular  case,  then,  becomes  a matter  of  his- 
torical investigation.  It  cannot  be  disposed  of  by  a simple  de- 
nial from  & jctriori  philosophical  prejudice;  but  must  be  fairly 
examined,  and,  if  sufficiently  corroborated  by  external  and  in- 
ternal evidence,  it  must  be  admitted. 

Now,  the  miracles  of  Christ  cannot  be  separated  from  his 
person  and  his  teachings.  His  words  are  as  marvellous  as 
his  deeds ; both  form  a harmonious  whole,  and  they  stand  or 
fall  together.  His  person  is  the  great  miracle,  and  his  miracles 
are  simply  his  natural  works.  He  is  as  much  elevated  above 
other  men  as  his  words  and  deeds  are  above  ordinary  words 
and  deeds.  He  is  separated  from  all  mortals  by  his  absolute 
freedom  from  sin.  He,  himself,  claims  superhuman  origin  and 
supernatural  powers ; and  to  deny  them  is  to  make  him  a liar  and 
impostor.  It  is  impossible  to  maintain  his  human  perfection, 
which  all  respectable  rationalists  admit  and  even  emphasize,  and 
yet  to  refuse  his  testimony  concerning  himself.  The  Christ  of 
Strauss  and  of  Henan  is  the  most  contradictory  of  all  characters  ; 
the  most  incredible  of  all  enigmas.  There  is  no  possible  scien- 
tific mediation  between  a purely  humanitarian  conception  of 
Christ,  no  matter  how  high  he  may  be  raised  in  the  scale  of  be- 
ings, and  the  faith  in  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God,  whom  Chris- 
tendom has  adored  from  the  beginning  and  still  adores  as  the 
Lord  and  Saviour  of  the  world. 

Nor  can  we  eliminate  the  supernatural  element  from  the 
Apostolic  Church  without  destroying  its  very  life  and  resolving 
it  into  a gigantic  illusion.  What  becomes  of  Paul  if  we  deny 
his  conversion,  and  how  shall  we  account  for  his  conversion 
without  the  Resurrection  and  Ascension  ? The  greatest  of 
modem  sceptics  paused  at  the  problem,  and  felt  almost  forced 
to  admit  an  actual  miracle,  as  the  only  rational  solution  of  that 
conversion.  The  Holy  Spirit  was  the  inspiring  and  propelling 
power  of  the  apostolic  age,  and  made  the  fishers  of  Galilee 
fishers  of  men. 


860 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


A Christian,  who  has  experienced  the  power  of  the  gospel  in 
his  heart,  can  have  no  difficulty  with  the  supernatural.  He  ia 
as  sure  of  the  regenerating  and  converting  agency  of  the  Spirit 
of  God  and  the  saving  efficacy  of  Christ  as  he  is  of  his  own 
natural  existence.  He  has  tasted  the  medicine  and  has  been 
healed.  He  may  say  with  the  man  who  was  born  blind  and 
made  to  see  : “ One  thing  I do  know,  that,  whereas  I was  blind, 
now  I see.”  This  is  a short  creed  ; but  stronger  than  any  argu- 
ment. The  fortress  of  personal  experience  is  impregnable ; the 
logic  of  stubborn  facts  is  more  cogent  than  the  logic  of  reason. 
Every  genuine  conversion  from  sin  to  holiness  is  a psychological 
miracle,  as  much  so  as  the  conversion  of  Saul  of  Tarsus. 

The  secret  or  open  hostility  to  the  supernatural  is  the  moving 
spring  of  infidel  criticism.  We  may  freely  admit  that  certain 
difficulties  about  the  time  and  place  of  composition  and  other 
minor  details  of  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  are  not,  and  perhaps 
never  can  be,  satisfactorily  solved ; but  it  is,  nevertheless,  true 
that  they  are  far  better  authenticated  by  internal  and  external 
evidence  than  any  books  of  the  great  Greek  and  Roman  clas- 
sics, or  of  Philo  and  Josephus,  which  are  accepted  by  scholars 
without  a doubt.  As  early  as  the  middle  of  the  second  century, 
that  is,  fifty  years  after  the  death  of  the  Apostle  John,  when 
yet  many  of  his  personal  pupils  and  friends  must  have  been 
living,  the  four  Canonical  Gospels,  no  more  and  no  less,  were 
recognized  and  read  in  public  worship  as  sacred  books,  in  the 
churches  of  Syria,  Asia  Minor,  Egypt,  Italy,  and  Gaul ; and 
such  universal  acceptance  and  authority  in  the  face  of  Jewish 
and  heathen  hostility  and  heretical  perversion  can  only  be  ex- 
plained on  the  ground  that  they  were  known  and  used  long 
before.  Some  of  them,  Matthew  and  John,  were  quoted  and 
used  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  second  century  by  Orthodox  and 
Gnostic  writers.  Every  new  discovery,  as  the  last  book  of  the 
pseudo-“  Clementine  Homilies,”  the  “ Philosophumena  ” of 
Hippolytus,  the  “ Diatessaron  ” of  Tatian,  and  every  deeper  in- 
vestigation of  the  “ Gospel  Memoirs  ” of  Justin  Martyr,  and  the 
“ Gospel  ” of  Marcion  in  its  relation  to  Luke,  have  strengthened 


§ 102.  CONCLUDING  REFLECTIONS. 


861 


the  cause  of  historical  and  conservative  criticism  and  inflicted 
bleeding  wounds  on  destructive  criticism,  if  quotations  from 
the  end  of  the  first  and  the  beginning  of  the  second  century  are 
very  rare,  we  must  remember  that  we  have  only  a handful  of 
literary  documents  from  that  period,  and  that  the  second  gener- 
ation of  Christians  was  not  a race  of  scholars  and  scribes  and 
critics,  but  of  humble,  illiterate  confessors  and  martyrs,  who 
still  breathed  the  bracing  air  of  the  living  teaching,  and  personal 
reminiscences  of  the  apostles  and  evangelists. 

But  the  Synoptical  Gospels  bear  the  strongest  internal  marks 
of  having  been  composed  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
(a.d.  70),  which  is  therein  prophesied  by  Christ  as  a future 
event  and  as  the  sign  of  the  fast  approaching  judgment  of  the 
world,  in  a manner  that  is  consistent  only  with  such  early  com- 
position. The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  likewise,  was  written 
when  the  Temple  was  still  standing,  and  sacrifices  were  offered 
from  day  to  day.  Yet,  as  this  early  date  is  not  conceded  by  all, 
we  will  leave  the  Epistle  out  of  view.  The  Apocalypse  of  John 
is  very  confidently  assigned  to  the  year  68  or  69  by  Baur, 
Iienan,  and  others,  who  would  put  the  Gospels  down  to  a much 
later  date.  They  also  concede  the  Pauline  authorship  of  the  great 
anti- Judaic  Epistles  to  the  Galatians,  Homans,  and  Corinthians, 
and  make  them  the  very  basis  of  their  assaults  upon  the  minor 
Pauline  Epistles  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  on  the  ground  of 
exaggerated  or  purely  imaginary  differences.  Those  Epistles  of 
Paul  were  written  twelve  or  fourteen  years  before  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem.  This  brings  us  within  less  than  thirty  years 
of  the  resurrection  of  Christ  and  the  birthday  of  the  church. 

Now,  if  we  confine  ourselves  to  these  five  books,  which  the 
most  exacting  and  rigorous  criticism  admits  to  be  apostolic — 
the  four  Pauline  Epistles  and  the  Apocalypse — they  alone  are 
sufficient  to  establish  the  foundation  of  historical  faith ; for 
they  confirm  by  direct  statement  or  allusion  every  important 
fact  and  doctrine  in  the  gospel  history,  without  referring  to  the 
written  Gospels.  The  memory  and  personal  experience  of  the 
writers — Paul  and  John — goes  back  to  the  vision  of  Damascus, 


862 


FIRST  PERIOD.  A.D.  1-100. 


to  the  scenes  of  the  Resurrection  and  Crucifixion,  and  the  first 
call  of  the  disciples  on  the  banks  of  the  Jordan  and  the  shores 
of  the  Lake  of  Galilee.  Criticism  must  first  reason  Paul  and 
John  out  of  history,  or  deny  that  they  ever  wrote  a line,  before 
it  can  expect  sensible  men  to  surrender  a single  chapter  of  the 
Gospels. 

Strong  as  the  external  evidence  is,  the  internal  evidence  of 
the  truth  and  credibility  of  the  apostolic  writings  is  still 
stronger,  and  may  be  felt  to  this  day  by  the  unlearned  as  well 
as  the  scholar.  They  widely  differ  in  style  and  spirit  from  all 
post-apostolic  productions,  and  occupy  a conspicuous  isolation 
even  among  the  best  of  books.  This  position  they  have  occupied 
for  eighteen  centuries  among  the  most  civilized  nations  of  the 
globe ; and  from  this  position  they  are  not  likely  to  be  deposed. 

We  must  interpret  persons  and  events  not  only  by  themselves, 
but  also  in  the  light  of  subsequent  history.  “ By  their  fruits  ye 
shall  know  them.”  Christianity  can  stand  this  test  better  than 
any  other  religion,  and  better  than  any  system  of  philosophy. 

Taking  our  position  at  the  close  of  the  apostolic  age,  and 
looking  back  to  its  fountain-head  and  forward  to  succeeding 
generations,  we  cannot  but  be  amazed  at  the  magnitude  of  the 
effects  produced  by  the  brief  public  ministry  of  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth, which  sends  its  blessings  through  centuries  as  an  unbroken 
and  ever-expanding  river  of  life.  There  is  absolutely  nothing 
like  it  in  the  annals  of  the  race.  The  Roman  empire  em- 
braced, at  the  birth  of  Christ,  over  one  hundred  millions  of 
men,  conquered  by  force,  and,  after  having  persecuted  his  reli- 
gion for  three  hundred  years,  it  died  away  without  the  possi- 
bility of  a resurrection.  The  Christian  church  now  numbers 
four  hundred  millions,  conquered  by  the  love  of  Christ,  and  is 
constantly  increasing.  The  first  century  is  the  life  and  light  of 
history  and  the  turning  point  of  the  ages.  If  ever  God  revealed 
himself  to  man,  if  ever  heaven  appeared  on  earth,  it  was  in 
the  person  and  work  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  He  is,  beyond  any 
shadow  of  doubt,  and  by  the  reluctant  consent  of  sceptics  and 
infidels,  the  wisest  of  the  wise,  the  purest  of  the  pure,  and  the 


102-  CONCLUDING  REFLECTIONS. 


803 


mightiest  of  the  mighty.  His  Cross  has  become  the  tree  of 
life  to  all  nations ; his  teaching  is  still  the  highest  standard  of 
religious  truth;  his  example  the  unsurpassed  ideal  of  holiness; 
the  Gospels  and  Epistles  of  his  Galilean  disciples  are  still  the 
book  of  books,  more  powerful  than  all  the  classics  of  human 
wisdom  and  genius.  No  book  has  attracted  so  much  attention, 
provoked  so  much  opposition,  outlived  so  many  persecutions, 
called  forth  so  much  reverence  and  gratitude,  inspired  so  many 
noble  thoughts  and  deeds,  administered  so  much  comfort  and 
peace  from  the  cradle  to  the  grave  to  all  classes  and  conditions 
of  men.  It  is  more  than  a book ; it  is  an  institution,  an  all-per- 
vading omnipresent  force,  a converting,  sanctifying,  transform- 
ing agency ; it  rules  from  the  pulpit  and  the  chair ; it  presides 
at  the  family  altar  ; it  is  the  sacred  ark  of  every  household,  the 
written  conscience  of  every  Christian  man,  the  pillar  of  cloud 
by  day,  the  pillar  of  light  by  night  in  the  pilgrimage  of  life. 
Mankind  is  bad  enough,  and  human  life  dark  enough  with  it ; 
but  how  much  worse  and  how  much  darker  would  they  be 
without  it  ? Christianity  might  live  without  the  letter  of  the 
New  Testament,  but  not  without  the  facts  and  truths  which  it 
records  and  teaches.  Were  it  possible  to  banish  them  from  the 
world,  the  sun  of  our  civilization  would  be  extinguished,  and 
mankind  left  to  midnight  darkness,  with  the  dreary  prospect  of 
a dreamless  and  endless  Nirvana. 

But  no  power  on  earth  or  in  hell  can  extinguish  that  sun. 
There  it  shines  on  the  horizon,  the  king  of  day,  obscured  at 
times  by  clouds  great  or  small,  but  breaking  through  again  and 
again,  and  shedding  light  and  life  from  east  to  west,  until  the 
darkest  corners  of  the  globe  shall  be  illuminated.  The  past  is 
secure ; God  will  take  care  of  the  future. 

Magna  est  veiutas  et  peasvalebit. 


ALPHABETICAL  INDEX 


Aciiaia,  734 

Acts  of  the  Apostles,  187,  195,  724 ; 
contents,  720  ; sources,  727 ; date, 
727 ; relation  to  the  Gospels,  729  ; 
to  the  Epistles,  729  ; to  secular  his- 
tory, 731 ; critical  questions  respect- 
ing, 737 

Adam  of  Bremen,  30 
Agape,  473 
Alogi,  717 
Alzog,  35 
Anastasius,  30 
Andrew,  the  Apostle,  200 
Angels  of  the  Apocalypse,  497 
Antichrist,  841  ; interpretations,  his- 
torical, 844  ; chronological,  848 ; 
mystical  and  symbolical,  850 
Antioch,  church  of,  279,  319 
Antoninus,  30 

Apocalypse  of  St.  John,  385,  419,  427, 
825  ; general  character,  826 ; anal- 
ysis, 831  ; authorship,  832  ; date, 
834  ; interpretation,  838  ; the  num- 
ber of  the  beast,  841 
Apocryphal  Gospels,  90 
Apocryphal  Acts  and  Epistles,  188 
Apollos,  758 
Apostles’  Creed,  464 
Apostles,  representative,  199-205 ; the 
office,  489 

Apostolic  age,  character  of,  194  ; criti- 
cal reconstruction  of,  205 ; chro- 
nology of,  217 

Apostolic  church,  alleged  parties  in 
the,  209  ; spiritual  condition  of,  450 
Apostolic  Council  at  Jerusalem,  335, 
350  ; letter  of,  345 


Apostolic  theology,  its  unity,  511 ; 

types  of,  515 
Aratus,  290 

Areopagus,  Paul’s  sermon  on  the,  325 
Aristotle,  75,  78 
Arnold,  Gottfried,  39 
Athens,  Paul  at,  325 
Atonement,  Paul’s  idea  of,  530 
Augustin, quoted  respecting  John,  430 ; 
respecting  the  symbolism  of  the  Gos- 
pels, 586 

Baird,  H.  M.,  51 

Baptism,  465  ; idea,  466  ; form,  468 ; 

subjects,  469  ; of  infants,  469 
Bar-Cocheba,  402 
Barnabas,  323 
Baronius,  30 
Basnage,  31 
Baur,  F.  C.,  43,  208 
Bed  a Venerabilis,  30 
Beroea,  325 
Bethlehem,  139 

Beza,  quoted  on  Paul’s  Epistles,  754 
Bishops,  491  ; identical  with  Presby- 
ters, 492  ; origin  and  office,  495 
Bossuet,  33 

Brothers  of  the  Lord,  272-275 

CAESAREA  PniLIPPI,  143 
Caesarea  Stratonis,  327 
Callistus,  29 
Cassiodorus.  29 
Cerinthus,  430,  717 
Charisms,  437 
Charity,  440 


866 


ALPHABETICAL  INDEX. 


Clement  of  Rome  on  Paul’s  captivity 
and  martyrdom,  332 
Christ  Jesus,  see  Jesus  Christ 
Christian  life,  432  ; John’s  doctrine  of, 
560 

Christian  name,  origin  of,  279 
Christianity,  preparation  for,  56  ; 
spread  of,  196;  reasons  for  rapid 
spread,  197  ; affected  by  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  403  ; spiritual  power 
of,  432  ; in  individuals,  441 ; in  the 
family,  443;  extinguished  slavery, 
445  ; in  society,  448 
Christians,  designations  of,  279 
Christology  of  Paul,  543,  775 ; of  Pe- 
ter, 524  ; of  John,  552 
Christ  party  at  Corinth,  758 
Church,  general  idea  of,  506;  its  re- 
lation to  the  State,  506 ; Paul’s 
view  of,  507 

Church  history,  nature  of,  2 ; defini- 
tion, 3 ; branches  of,  6 ; sources  of, 
11 ; ages  and  periods  of,  13  ; uses 
of,  20 ; method  of,  22 
Circumcision,  question  of,  335,  337 
Cleanthes,  290 

Clement  of  Alexandria  upon  John, 
429 

Clement  of  Rome  upon  Paul’s  martyr- 
dom, 332 

Colossae,  and  the  church  of,  770 
Colossian  heresy,  772 
Colossians,  Epistle  to  the,  769  ; com- 
pared with  Ephesians,  782-788 
Communion,  the  Holy,  see  Lord’s  Sup- 
per 

Confession  of  faith,  464 
Conversion,  in  general,  535  ; of  Paul, 
cases  analogous  to,  304 
Corinth,  parties  in  the  congregation 
of,  758 

Corinthians,  First  Epistle  to  the,  758  ; 

Second  Epistle,  760 
Cornelius,  278 

Council  of  Jerusalem,  339,  503 
Critical  schools,  208 
Criticism,  textual,  206;  historical, 
207 ; relation  to  faith,  853 


Deacons,  Deaconesses,  499 ; in  post- 
apostolic  times,  500 
Development  of  the  church,  4 
Discipline  of  the  church,  501 
Doctrines,  history  of,  10 
Dollinger,  35 
Domitian,  427 
Domer,  I.  A.,  45 
Dupin,  33 

Easter,  480 
Ebionism,  567 

Ebionite  fiction  concerning  Peter,  257 
Ebrard,  45 

Eldets,  491 ; teaching  and  ruling,  496 
Election  taught  by  Paul,  534 
Election  of  church  officers,  485,  495 
Engelhard t,  44 

Ephesians,  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the,  776  ; 
compared  with  Colossians,  782-788  ; 
Epistle  to  the,  in  the  Apocalypse, 
453 

Ephesus,  Paul  at,  326  ; ruins  of,  736 
Epictetus,  770 

Episcopacy,  nearest  approach  to,  in 
New  Testament,  498 
Epistles,  in  general,  739;  the  Catho- 
lic, 741 ; the  Pauline,  749  (in  general, 
749 ; chronology,  751 ; doctrinal  ar- 
rangement, 752 ; Epistles  of  the 
Captivity,  767) 

Evagrius,  29 
Evangelists,  491 

Ewald,  quoted  on  Paul’s  Epistles,  754 
Fabre,  32 

Faith  and  criticism,  853 
Faith  and  works  in  James’  theology, 
519 

Family,  influence  of  Christianity  upor 
the,  443 

Farrar,  F.  \V.,  49,  245 
Felix,  327 
Festivals,  480 
Festus,  327 
Fisher,  G.  P.,  51 
Flacius,  37 
Fleury,  32 


ALPHABETICAL  INDEX. 


867 


Florus,  Gessius,  394 
Frickc,  45 

Foreknowledge  and  foreordination, 
Paul’s  doctrine  of,  534 

Galatia,  churches  of,  324,  7G3 
Galatians,  Epistles  to  the,  762 
Galilee,  Sea  of,  142 
Gentile  Christianity,  209  ; theology  of, 
525 

GfrOrer,  35 
Gibbon,  47 
Gieseler,  42 
Gifts,  spiritual,  436 
Gillett,  51 

Glorification.  Paul’s  doctrine  of,  539 
Glossolalia,  230,  234 
Gnosticism  and  Gnostics,  210,  566 
Godet,  quoted  on  John,  421 
Gospels,  literature  on  the,  575;  general 
character  and  aim,  579  ; common 
origin,  581 ; individual  characteris- 
tics, 581  ; dates,  582  ; credibility, 
584,  589  ; symbolism,  585  ; synop- 
tic, see  Synoptists 

Greek  culture  and  literature  in  its  re- 
lation to  Christianity,  76 
Gregory  of  Tours,  30 
Guericke,  45 

Hagenbach,  44 
Hardwick,  48 
Hase,  44 
Hasse,  45 
Hay  mo,  30 

Heathenism,  71,  85;  character  of  the 
gods  of,  73;  fragments  of  truth  in,  74 
Hebrews,  Epistle  to  the,  808 ; con- 
tents, 810  ; style,  813  ; occasion  and 
aim,  814  ; time  and  place  of  com- 
position, 816  ; authorship,  817-823; 
its  position  in  the  New  Testament, 
823 ; its  hapaxlegomena,  824 
Hefele,  34 
Hellenists,  87 
Henke,  40 

Heresy  and  apostolio  teaching,  564 
Hergenrother,  35 


Herod  the  Great,  112 

Herod  Agrippa  I.,  250 

Herod  Agrippa  II.,  327 

Herzog,  45,  52 

Hierapolis,  and  the  church  of,  770 

Hillel,  159 

Holy  Spirit,  descent  of,  227  ; Paul’s 
doctrine  of,  532  ; John’s  doctrine  of, 
559 

Hottinger,  38 

Hymns  in  early  Christian  worship,  463 

Ideleii  on  the  date  of  Christ’s  birth, 
117 

Immersion,  468 

Incarnation,  John’s  doctrine  of,  563 

Interdependency- theory  of  the  Synop- 
tists, 608 

Inspiration-theory  of  the  Synoptists, 
608 

Irenseus,  quoted  from  respecting  John, 
430;  respecting  the  symbolism  of 
the  Gospels,  586 

Irvingite  view  of  the  apostolic  offices, 
489 

James  the  Elder,  the  son  of  Zebedee, 
199 

James  the  Just,  the  brother  of  the 
Lord,  265 ; conversion,  206 ; rela- 
tion to  Paul,  267,  521  ; death,  267  ; 
Epistle,  269,  743  ; doc'rinal  system, 
269,  517 ; description  of,  276 ; speech 
in  the  Apostolic  Council,  344 

James  the  Less  (or  Little; , the  son  of 
Alpheus,  272 

Jerusalem,  144,  152;  congregation  of, 
247;  destruction  of,  391,  £98;  Ro- 
man triumph,  400 ; Council  of,  .339, 
503 

Jesus  Christ,  Josephus’  testimony  to, 
92  ; person  of,  100  ; position  in  his- 
tory, 100;  outline  of  the  life,  101- 
106;  moral  character,  106;  divinity, 
107  ; year  of  birth  of , 111-127  ; year 
of  beginning  to  preach,  119;  year 
of  crucifixion,  126, 133  ; day  of  birth 
of,  127-129;  length  of  life  of,  129; 


868 


ALPHABETICAL  INDEX. 


length  of  public  ministry,  130;  coun- 
try of,  137-145  ; people  of,  146 ; the 
Messiah,  157 ; and  Hillel,  159  ; apo- 
cryphal sayings  of,  162;  personal 
appearance  of,  167 ; Mara’s  testi- 
mony to,  171;  resurrection  of,  172- 
186  ; skeptical  testimonies  to,  435 ; 
discourses  in  the  Synoptics  and  the 
Fourth  Gospel  compared,  693 
Jewish  Christianity,  209 ; Christian 
theology,  517 

Jewish  religion,  64  ; influence  of,  87 ; 
war,  393 

Jews,  their  political  condition  at  the 
time  of  Christ,  85 ; their  religious 
condition,  87,  154 

John  the  Apostle  and  Evangelist,  199, 
412 ; his  early  life,  413  ; education, 
414  ; character  and  position  in  the 
apostolic  church,  416,  423  ; writ- 
ings, 418  ; apostolic  labors,  423 ; life 
at  Ephesus,  424  ; death,  424,  429 ; 
banishment  to  Patmos,  426;  tradi- 
tions respecting,  429  ; epithets  of, 
430;  doctrinal  system,  549;  writings, 
Apocalypse,  419,  427  ; Gospel,  419, 
675  (relation  to  Synoptists,  676  ; oc- 
casion for,  678 ; object,  680  ; analy- 
sis of,  683;  characteristics,  688  ; 
discourses  of  Christ  in,  compared 
with  those  in  the  Synoptics,  693  : 
style,  699  ; proofs  of  the  Johanuean 
authorship,  701  ; refutation  of  erro- 
neous views  respecting,  721) ; Epis- 
tles, 748 

John  the  Baptist,  the  representative 
of  the  law  and  the  prophets,  70 
John  of  Gischala,  400,  401 
Josephus,  testimony  concerning  Jesus, 
92 ; testimony  concerning  John  the 
Baptist,  170;  on  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  399  ; rewarded  by  the 
Romans,  401 
Judaism,  62 
Judaizers,  565,  567 
Jude,  Epistle  of,  747 
Justification  by  faith,  Paul’s  doctrine 
of,  536 


Katerkamp,  34 
Kepler,  115,  116 
Kingdom  of  Christ,  506 
Kollner,  45 
Kraus,  35 
Kurtz,  35 

Laderchi,  31 

Laodicea,  church  of,  452,  769 
Laurentius  Valla,  30 
Laying  on  of  hands,  496 
Law  of  Moses,  66 
Lecky,  testimony  to  Christ,  435 
Lindner,  45 

Logos  in  John’s  theology,  552 
Lord’s  Day,  the  substitute  for  the  Sab- 
bath, 477  ; the  first  day  of  the  week, 
478  ; its  universal  observance,  478  ; 
kept  by  Jewish  Christians  alongside 
of  the  Sabbath,  478 
Lord’s  Supper,  471 ; daily  celebrated, 
473  ; preparation  for,  473  ; theories 
respecting,  474  ; true  idea  of,  474 
Luke,  life  of,  649 ; Gospel  of,  652 ; 
contents,  656 ; characteristic  fea- 
tures, 659 ; style,  664  ; genuineness, 
668;  credibility,  6G9;  date,  670 
Lydia  (person),  735 

Magdeburg  centuries,  37 
Magi,  star  and  visit  of,  113 
Mara’s  testimony  to  Christ,  171 
Mark,  life  of,  628;  Gospel  of,  631  ; 
character  and  aim,  632 ; doctrinal 
position,  635;  style,  636;  charac 
teristic  details,  638  ; integrity,  641  ; 
disputed  close,  643-647 
Matthew,  613  ; Gospel  of,  614 ; char- 
acter and  aim,  615 ; topical  arrange- 
ment, 618;  original  sections,  619; 
style,  620  ; critical  and  literary  ques- 
tions respecting,  621-627 
Merle  d’Aubigne,  45 
Messianic  expectations,  155,  394 
Mill,  John  Stuart,  testimony  to  Christ, 
436 

Milman,  49 
Milner,  48 


ALPHABETICAL  INDEX 


Ministerial  office,  4J?4  ; its  functions, 
485  ; qualifications  for,  485  ; Bishop 
Lightfoot  upon,  480  ; appeal  to  the 
New  Testament  concerning,  487 
Miracles,  gift  of,  439 
Mohler,  35 
Mosheim,  39 

Natalis,  Alexander,  32 
Nazareth,  140 
Neander,  40 

Nero,  378,  389 ; persecution  of  the 
Christians  under,  380,  387 ; its  ex- 
tent, 384 ; in  the  Apocalypse,  385, 
845 

New  Testament,  literature  on  the,  j 
509  ; rise  of  the,  570  ; determination 
of  the  canon  of  the,  572  ; character 
of  the,  573  ; kind  of  writing  in  the, 
574 

Nicephorus  Callisti,  29 
Nicolaus  of  Cusa,  30 
Niedner,  44 

Old  Testament,  revelation  of,  06 
Ordination,  496 

Palestine,  size  of,  137 
Papacy,  claims  of,  261 
Papal  theory  of  Peter,  258-263 
Pastoral  Epistles,  798 ; authorship, 
799 ; date,  800 ; oppose  Gnostic 
heresy,  802;  what  ecclesiastical 
organization  they  presuppose,  803  ; 
their  style,  805  ; objections  to,  806 
Patmos,  426 

Paul,  199  ; testimony  to  historical 
Christianity,  213;  name,  origin,  and 
education,  286 ; classical  culture 
and  use  of  Greek,  289-291 ; Phari- 
seeism,  292 ; personal  and  family 
relations,  293  ; personal  appearance, 
282,  294 ; conversion,  296 ; experi- 
mental theology,  300  ; ohanged  life, 
303;  his  conversion  falsely  explained, 
307  ; concessions  of  critics  respect- 
ing his  conversion,  31 5 ; preparation 
for  his  apostolic  labors,  316;  mis- 
sionary spirit,  sphere  of  labor,  and 


869 

policy,  319  ; first  journey  to  Jeru- 
salem, 322  ; second  journey  to  Jeru- 
salem, 323  ; first  missionary  tour, 
324 ; third  journey  to  Jerusalem  and 
conference  with  the  apostles  in  pub- 
lic council,  324,  339;  collision  with 
Peter  and  Barnabas  at  Antioch,  sec- 
ond missionary  tour,  324  ; founds 
the  congregations  in  Phrygia  and 
Galatia,  in  Philippi,  in  Thessalo- 
nica,  and  in  Beroea,  324  ; preaches 
at  Athens,  325 ; labors  at  Corinth, 
325;  writes  to  the  Thessalonians, 
326,  755  ; fourth  journey  to  Jerusa- 
lem and  Antioch,  326 ; third  mission- 
ary tour,  326  ; labors  three  years 
at  Ephesus,  326 ; writes  to  the 
Galatians,  762  ; and  to  the  Corin- 
thians, 757  (first,  758  ; second,  760' ; 
and  Romans,  326,  764;  revisits 
Macedonia  and  Achaia,  326  ; fifth 
and  last  journey  to  Jerusalem,  326  ; 
farewell  address  at  Miletus,  and 
his  arrest  at  Jerusalem,  326  ; his 
defence  before  the  Sanhedrin,  327  ; 
his  captivity  at  Caesarea,  327 ; be- 
fore Felix,  327  ; before  Festus  and 
Agrippa,  327 ; journey  to  Rome, 
327 ; captivity  at  Rome,  327,  370 ; 
writes  to  the  Colossians,  769  ; to 
the  Ephesians,  778  ; to  the  Pliilip- 
pians,  790 ; and  to  Philemon,  328, 
793 ; hypothesis  of  the  second  im- 
prisonment, 328,  331;  the  Pastoral 
Epistles,  328 ; martyrdom,  S29  ; 
moral  character,  330  ; the  unity  of 
his  life,  301 ; style  of  writing,  753  ; 
doctrinal  system,  525-549  (Christol- 
ogy,  543  ; predestination,  545 ; jus- 
tification, 547) ; Epistles  in  general, 
749  ; chronology,  751 ; doctrinal  ar- 
rangement, 752  ; style,  753 
Paulus  Diaconus,  30 
Pella,  Christian  flight  to,  402 
Pentecost,  birthday  of  the  church, 
225  ; celebration  of,  226 ; rational  - 
istic  explanation  of,  242;  date  and 
place  of,  243 


870 


ALPHABETICAL  INDEX. 


Pergamum,  church  of,  453 
Persecution,  249,  250 ; of  Nero,  380, 
428  ; of  Domitian,  427 
Peter,  199  ; his  sermon  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  24S  ; activity,  249  ; con- 
firms the  Samaritans,  278  ; baptizes 
Cornelius,  278;  is  imprisoned  under 
Herod  Agrippa,  but  miraculously 
delivered  and  leaves  Jerusalem,  250; 
attends  the  Apostolic  Council,  250, 
343  ; his  collision  with  Paul  at  An- 
tioch, 250  ; personal  character,  253  ; 
general  position  in  church  history, 
253 ; and  in  tradition,  250 ; later 
labors,  250  ; Epistles,  524 ; first 
Epistle,  744;  second  Epistle,  746; 
residence  in  Rome,  251 ; martyr- 
dom, 252;  doctrinal  system,  522; 
relation  to  Catholicism,  258-263 
Pharisees,  64 

Philadelphia,  church  of,  451 
Philemon,  Epistle  to,  75 2,  793 
Philippi,  and  the  congregation  of, 
788,  792 

Philippians,  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the, 
790 

Philo,  88 

Phrygia,  churches  in,  769 
Plato  and  Platonism,  74,  75,  78 
Pleroma,  Gnostic  and  Pauline,  773 
Pliny  and  Paul,  796 
Polycrates’  story  of  John,  431 
Prayer,  462  ; Jewish  hours  of,  476 
Preaching,  461 
Predestination,  534,  545 
Presbyters,  491 
Pressensc,  de,  46 
Priesthood,  universal,  486 
Primacy  of  Peter,  261 
Primitive-Gospel  theory,  610 
Prophets  and  prophecy  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, 68  ; of* the  New  Testament, 
490 

Proselytes,  87 

Protestant  church  historians,  36 
Publius  Lentulus,  letter  about  Jesus, 
168 

Puteoli,  369. — Quirinius,  121 


Rabbis  and  their  sayings,  149 
Raynaldi,  31 
Renan,  46 

Resurrection  of  Christ,  four  theories 
of,  175-186  (historical,  175  ; fraud, 
177  ; swoon,  178;  vision,  179-186) 
Revelation  of  John,  see  Apocalypse 
Ritter,  35 

Robertson,  Canon,  48 
Rohrbacher,  34 

Roman  Catholic  church  historians,  30 
Romans,  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the,  764 
Rome,  its  universal  dominion,  a prepa- 
ration for  Christianity,  79 ; decline 
in  morals,  82 ; church  at,  371 ; its 
language,  373  ; and  social  condition, 
373 ; Conflagration  in,  377 ; triumph 
in,  over  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
400 

Rothe,  45 

Sachabelli,  32 
Sacraments,  465 
Sacred  places,  475 
Sacred  times,  476 
Sadducees,  65 
Samaritans,  88,  278 
Sanctification,  Paul’s  doctrine  of,  537 
Sardis,  church  of,  452 
Sarpi,  Paolo,  32 
Saul,  see  Paul 
Schaff,  51 
Schenkel,  180 
Schmid,  45 
Schrockh,  40 
Scriptores  Byzantini,  29 
Scriptures,  the  reading  of,  462 
Sergius  Paulus,  324  ; 733 
Sermon  in  apostolic  times,  461 
Seven  churches  of  Asia  Minor,  spirit- 
ual condition  of,  450 
Shedd,  W.  G.  T.,  51 
Sicarians,  394 
Silas,  324 

Simon  Bar-Giora,  400,  401 
Simon  Magus,  257,  566 

Singing  in  early  Christian  worship, 
463 


ALPHABETICAL  INDEX. 


871 


Slavery,  445  ; extent  in  Greece  and 
Rome,  447  ; Paul  and,  794 
Smith.  Henry  B.,  50;  Philip,  49 
Smyrna,  church  of,  451 
Socrates,  the  historian,  29 
Socrates,  the  philosopher,  75 
Soteriology,  of  Peter,  524 ; of  Paul, 
529 

Sozomenus,  29 
Spanheim,  38 
Spiritual  gifts,  436 
Stanley,  A.  P.,  49,  422 
Stephen,  the  first  martyr,  249 
Stevens,  Abel,  51 
Stolberg,  von,  34 
Strauss,  179 
Sunday,  477 

/Supernatural  Religion,  testimony  to 
Christ,  435 

Supper  of  the  Lord,  see  Lord’s  Supper 
Synagogue,  building  and  worship,  151, 
456 

Syncretism,  5G7 

Synoptists,  590 ; relationship,  591-598, 
607-612  ; independence,  598  ; com- 
mon source^  602 ; order,  606 ; rela- 
tion to  John,  676 

Tacitus  on  the  Neronian  persecution, 
387 

Temple  in  Jerusalem,  destruction  of, 
397 


Tendency-hypothesis  respecting  the 
Synoptists,  611 
Theiner,  31 
Theodoret,  29 
Theodorus,  29 
Therapeutae,  88 
Thessalonica,  755 

Thessalonians,  Epistles  of  Paul  to  the, 
755 

Theudas,  732 
Thyatira,  church  of,  453 
Tillemont,  33 

Timothy,  324  ; Epistles  to,  798 
Titus,  Emperor,  396 
Tongues,  gift  of,  see  Glossolalia 
Trench,  49 
Troas,  324 

Ullmann,  45 

Venema.  40 
Vespasian,  395 

Waddington,  48 

Wordsworth,  Bishop,  on  the  symbol- 
ism of  the  Gospels,  586 
Worship,  in  the  synagogue,  458; 
among  Christians,  460 

Zealots,  394 


000008108 


270  '*  ' ' ' “ 

Schlh 

m$  . 

V-  I f\f\  A 0 *1  ^ 

UUvU  _ i.  ;-w  J 


